I opened this JIRA, if anyone has good examples, please add it in the
comments:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-3566
Gyula
Gyula Fóra ezt írta (időpont: 2016. márc. 2., Sze,
15:54):
> Okay, I will open a JIRA issue
>
> Gyula
>
> Timo Walther ezt írta (időpont: 2016. márc. 2., Sze,
Okay, I will open a JIRA issue
Gyula
Timo Walther ezt írta (időpont: 2016. márc. 2., Sze,
15:42):
> Can you open an issue with an example of your custom TypeInfo? I will
> then open a suitable PR for it.
>
>
> On 02.03.2016 15:33, Gyula Fóra wrote:
> > Would that work with generic classes?
> >
Can you open an issue with an example of your custom TypeInfo? I will
then open a suitable PR for it.
On 02.03.2016 15:33, Gyula Fóra wrote:
Would that work with generic classes?
Timo Walther ezt írta (időpont: 2016. márc. 2., Sze,
15:22):
After thinking about it, I think an even better so
Would that work with generic classes?
Timo Walther ezt írta (időpont: 2016. márc. 2., Sze,
15:22):
> After thinking about it, I think an even better solution is to provide
> an interface for the TypeExtractor where the user can register mappings
> from class to TypeInformation.
> So that the Typ
After thinking about it, I think an even better solution is to provide
an interface for the TypeExtractor where the user can register mappings
from class to TypeInformation.
So that the TypeExctractor is more extensible. This would also solve you
problem. What do you think?
On 02.03.2016 15:00
Hi!
Yes I think, that sounds good :) We just need to make sure that this works
with things like the TupleTypeInfo which is built-on but I can still mix in
new Types for the fields.
Thanks,
Gyula
Timo Walther ezt írta (időpont: 2016. márc. 2., Sze,
14:02):
> The TypeExtractor's input type vali
The TypeExtractor's input type validation was designed for the built-in
TypeInformation classes.
In your case of a new, unknown TypeInformation, the validation should
simply skipped, because we can assume that you user knows what he is doing.
I can open a PR for that.
On 02.03.2016 11:34, Al
I think you have a point. Another user also just ran into problems with the
TypeExtractor. (The “Java Maps and TypeInformation” email).
So let’s figure out what needs to be changed to make it work for all people.
Cheers,
Aljoscha
> On 02 Mar 2016, at 11:15, Gyula Fóra wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> I ha
Hey,
I have brought up this issue a couple months back but I would like to do it
again.
I think the current way of validating the input type of udfs against the
out type of the preceeding operators is too aggressive and breaks a lot of
code that should otherwise work.
This issue appears all the
