Github user hsaputra commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/306#issuecomment-69992202
I don't remember if there any best practice about this, so If we think it
is useful we could keep this style and maybe document it?
But I don't think it is good practi
Github user aljoscha commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/306#issuecomment-69989899
I also find it quite helpful to have Serialised repeated in such cases.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on Gi
Github user hsaputra commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/306#issuecomment-69967270
Ah ok, thanks for the info Stephen, good to know it was intentional.
Do you want to keep this pattern?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this ema
Github user StephanEwen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/306#issuecomment-69965915
I think this is fine to merge.
FYI: I sometimes repeat the `Serializable` interface in the list of
superinterfaces (even when redundant) as a form of documenta
GitHub user hsaputra opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/306
FLINK-1402 - Remove Serializable extends from InputFormat interface
FLINK-1402
Remove Serializable extends from InputFormat interface since the
InputSplitSource interface already extend the Seri
