I meant maven dependencies that i can use by generating them from sources. On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 10:31 PM, Moiz S Jinia <moiz.ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok I'll try that. Its just that I'd rather use a stable version. > Are there any instructions for building binaries from latest sources? > > Moiz > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Kostas Kloudas < > k.klou...@data-artisans.com> wrote: > >> Hi Moiz, >> >> The skip-till-next is a big change and backporting it does not seem >> feasible. >> Also this would require more general changes to the 1.2 to make it >> compatible with the previous 1.2 versions. >> >> If you want you can already use the 1.3 version by downloading the master >> branch and writing your >> use-case against that. The changes until the final release are going to >> be minor hopefully and we can >> always help you adjust your program accordingly. >> >> Hope this helps, >> Kostas >> >> On Apr 29, 2017, at 6:23 PM, Moiz S Jinia <moiz.ji...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Oh ok thats a bit far off. Is there any chance of a backport of >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6208 to the 1.2 branch? I >> require the SKIP_TILL_NEXT behaviour for a production use case that we want >> to use Flink for. >> >> Moiz >> >> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Kostas Kloudas < >> k.klou...@data-artisans.com> wrote: >> >>> The 1.3 is scheduled for the beginning of June. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Kostas >>> >>> On Apr 29, 2017, at 6:16 PM, Moiz S Jinia <moiz.ji...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Dawid! >>> Yes thats what i was expecting. I'll give it a try. >>> >>> When do you expect 1.3.0 stable to be out? >>> >>> Moiz >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Dawid Wysakowicz < >>> wysakowicz.da...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> This is an expected behaviour. After the "ar" event there still may >>>> occur other "ar" event that will also trigger a match. >>>> To be more generic in all versions prior to 1.3.0 there are two >>>> different consuming strategies: >>>> >>>> - STRICT (the next operator) - that accepts only if the event >>>> occurs directly after the previous >>>> - SKIP TILL ANY (the followedBy operator) - it accepts any matching >>>> event following event if there were already an event that matched this >>>> pattern >>>> >>>> Because after "ni" event we could match with some other "ar" events, >>>> the match is timeouted after 5 seconds. >>>> >>>> In FLINK-6208 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-6208> we >>>> introduced third consuming strategy: >>>> >>>> - SKIP TILL NEXT(this is the strategy for followedBy right now) - >>>> the event does not have to occur directly after the previous one but >>>> only >>>> one event can be matched >>>> >>>> and you can still use SKIP TILL ANY by using followedByAny. I believe >>>> the SKIP TILL NEXT strategy is the one you expected. >>>> You can check it on master branch. We did introduce lots of new >>>> features and bugfixes to CEP for 1.3.0 version so any comments, >>>> tests or suggestions are welcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> Z pozdrowieniami! / Cheers! >>>> >>>> Dawid Wysakowicz >>>> *Data/Software Engineer* >>>> Skype: dawid_wys | Twitter: @OneMoreCoder >>>> <http://getindata.com/> >>>> >>>> 2017-04-29 12:14 GMT+02:00 Moiz S Jinia <moiz.ji...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> When using "next", this pattern works fine for the both a match as >>>>> well as a timeout: >>>>> >>>>> Pattern<Event, Event> pattern = Pattern.<Event>begin("start") >>>>> .where(evt -> evt.value.equals("ni")) >>>>> .next("last").where(evt -> evt.value.equals("ar")).within >>>>> (Time.seconds(5)); >>>>> >>>>> 1. "ni" then "ar" within 5 seconds - triggers match >>>>> 2. "ni" then no "ar" within 5 seconds - triggers timeout >>>>> >>>>> But with "followedBy", this does not behave as expected: >>>>> >>>>> Pattern<Event, Event> pattern = Pattern.<Event>begin("start") >>>>> .where(evt -> evt.value.equals("ni")) >>>>> .followedBy("last").where(evt -> evt.value.equals("ar")).within >>>>> (Time.seconds(5)); >>>>> >>>>> "ni" then "ar" within 5 seconds - triggers match and also triggers >>>>> timeout. >>>>> >>>>> Why is the timeout triggered when using followedBy (when there is a >>>>> match)? >>>>> >>>>> Version - 1.1.5. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
