Opened the PR. [1] Will merge the re-add  "getJavaStream()" method commit
as soon as travis passes if no objections, the second approach can be
discussed on github.

[1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1574

Best,

Marton

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Márton Balassi <balassi.mar...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'll do the fix(es) tomorrow morning.
>
> Best,
>
> Marton
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016, 20:05 Cory Monty <cory.mo...@getbraintree.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the quick response!
>>
>> Either solution works for us.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I would actually re-add the "getJavaStream()" method. There are probably
>>> other cases when people need it, and it does not hurt to expose it.
>>>
>>> Also, it allows you to combine programs written partly against the Java
>>> and Scala API (if you would ever want to do that).
>>>
>>> Stephan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Márton Balassi <balassi.mar...@gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Cory,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I did not mean to break your code. One solution that I could
>>>> suggest is to do it the way we have it for the batch api, namely having a
>>>> scala version for DataStreamUtils too. It might be placed under
>>>> flink-contrib for the time being.
>>>>
>>>> Would that solution fit your needs?
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Cory Monty <cory.mo...@getbraintree.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey there,
>>>>>
>>>>> We were using DataStreamUtils.collect in Scala for automated testing,
>>>>> which only works because of `DataStream.getJavaStream` accessor in the
>>>>> Scala version of `DataStream`. However, a recent commit (
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/flink/commit/086acf681f01f2da530c04289e0682c56f98a378)
>>>>> removed `getJavaStream` and replaced the method with a private version 
>>>>> that
>>>>> we can no longer access from our tests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have an alternative version of DataStreamUtils that does not
>>>>> require a Java DataStream?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Cory
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

Reply via email to