Hi Aljoscha,
I see. Thanks for your reply.
Best,
Tony Wei
Aljoscha Krettek 於 2017年4月26日 週三，下午10:29寫道：
> Hi,
> Both implementations work so no one bothered to change the older
> implementations yet. I don’t think it’s a problem but if you want you can
> adapt reduce/fold to the newer implementat
Hi,
Both implementations work so no one bothered to change the older
implementations yet. I don’t think it’s a problem but if you want you can adapt
reduce/fold to the newer implementation.
Best,
Aljoscha
> On 26. Apr 2017, at 14:51, 魏偉哲 wrote:
>
> Hi Aljoscha,
>
> I know the aggregate code i
Hi Aljoscha,
I know the aggregate code is newer. I am confused because the
implementations are not consistent.
Does it mean that the reduce/fold implementation would need to be
refactored for the purpose of having less layers ?
Or is it better to remain the current implementations for some reasons
Hi Tony,
The reason for this is that the aggregate code is newer. The new code has less
layers, compared to the reduce/fold implementation where it is
InternalFunction(ReduceApplyFunction(Reduce)) instead of
InteralAggregateFunction(Aggregate).
Best,
Aljoscha
> On 26. Apr 2017, at 06:39, 魏偉哲
Hi all,
Recently, I was tracing the source code in streaming api and I was confused
about some implementations.
When using reduce function with evictor, the *WindowStream* will wrap the
*ReduceFunction* and *ProcessWindowFunction* into
*ReduceApplyProcessWindonwFunction* and put it in
*InternalIt
