Hi Dong and Xuannan,
Thanks for your proposal! Processing time temporal join is a very important
feature, the proper implementation of which users have been waiting for a
long time.
However, I am wondering whether it is worth enhancing Watermarks and
related classes in order to support this feat
Hi Dong,
Thanks for your proposal. It is a very interesting feature and also a
complex one. Especially the "shotgun surgery"[1] of handling the
useProcessingTime logic. While reading the FLIP, I was wondering if it
possible to leverage the Visitor design pattern(not exactly use the pattern
directl
Dong,
Thank you for the careful analysis of my proposal. Your conclusions
make sense to me.
David
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 8:37 PM Dong Lin wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> Thank you for the detailed comments and the suggestion of this alternative
> approach.
>
> I agree with you that this alternative
Hi David,
Thank you for the detailed comments and the suggestion of this alternative
approach.
I agree with you that this alternative can also address the target use-case
with the same correctness. In comparison to the current FLIP, this
alternative indeed introduces much less complexity to the F
I'm delighted to see interest in developing support for
processing-time temporal joins.
The proposed implementation seems rather complex, and I'm not
convinced this complexity is justified/necessary. I'd like to outline
a simpler alternative that I think would satisfy the key objectives.
Key idea
Hi Dong and Xuannan,
I'm excited to see this FLIP. I think support for processing-time
temporal joins is something that the Flink users will greatly benefit
off. I specifically want to call-out that it's great to see the use
cases that this enables. From a technical implementation perspective,
I d
