+1
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Weichen Xu
wrote:
> +1.
>
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Matei Zaharia
> wrote:
>
>> +1 from me too.
>>
>> Matei
>>
>> > On Nov 3, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Wenchen Fan wrote:
>> >
>> > +1.
>> >
>> > I think this architecture makes a lot of sense to let executors
+1.
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Matei Zaharia
wrote:
> +1 from me too.
>
> Matei
>
> > On Nov 3, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Wenchen Fan wrote:
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > I think this architecture makes a lot of sense to let executors talk to
> source/sink directly, and bring very low latency.
> >
> > On Th
+1 from me too.
Matei
> On Nov 3, 2017, at 4:59 PM, Wenchen Fan wrote:
>
> +1.
>
> I think this architecture makes a lot of sense to let executors talk to
> source/sink directly, and bring very low latency.
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> +0 simply because I don't fee
+1.
I think this architecture makes a lot of sense to let executors talk to
source/sink directly, and bring very low latency.
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> +0 simply because I don't feel I know enough to have an opinion. I have no
> reason to doubt the change though, from a
