Hi Timo,
Thanks for your summary of design in FLINK-11067's discuss！
This proposal has two core objectives which I mentioned:
1. Must solve user import problems；
2. Unify interface definitions of TableEnvironment for stream and batch.
I think FLINK-11067 can fit the #1. and we need create a
HI Timo,
Thanks for your feedback! And I'm glad to hear that you are already
thinking about import issues!
1. I commented on the solution you mentioned in FLINK-11067. I have the
same questions with Dian Fu, about the design of compatibility in the
google doc, I look forward to your reply.
2. Ab
Hi Timo,
Thanks a lot for sharing the solution so quickly. I have left some comments on
the JIRA page mainly about the backwards compatibility. Looking forward to your
reply.
Thanks,
Dian
> 在 2018年12月11日，下午10:48，Timo Walther 写道：
>
> Hi Dian,
>
> I proposed a solution that should be backward
Hi Dian,
I proposed a solution that should be backwards compatible and solves our
Maven dependency problems in the corresponding issue.
I'm happy about feedback.
Regards,
Timo
Am 11.12.18 um 11:23 schrieb fudian.fd:
Hi Timo,
Thanks a lot for your reply. I think the cause to this problem i
Hi Timo,
Thanks a lot for your reply. I think the cause to this problem is that
TableEnvironment.getTableEnvironment() returns the actual TableEnvironment
implementations instead of an interface or an abstract base class. Even the
porting of FLINK-11067 is done, I'm afraid that the problem may
Hi Xuefu,
Thanks for your feedback, and mention the compatibility issues.
You are right the change will result version incompatibility. And we my
plan it's will be released in the version of 1.8.x.
To be frank, we have considered the compatibility approach, which is to
retain the current TableEnv
Hi Jincheng,
thanks for the proposal. I totally agree with the problem of having 3
StreamTableEnvironments and 3 BatchTableEnvironments. We also identified
this problem when doing Flink trainings and introductions to the Table &
SQL API.
Actually, @Dawid and I were already discussing to remo
Hi Jincheng,
Thanks for bringing this up. It seems making good sense to me. However, one
concern I have is about backward compatibility. Could you clarify whether
existing user program will break with the proposed changes?
The answer to the question would largely determine when this can be intr
