[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3223?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16257746#comment-16257746
]
Kenneth Knowles commented on BEAM-3223:
---------------------------------------
Suppose we have {{PTransformSpec}} and {{UdfSpec}} and {{CoderSpec}} that are
all a pair of URN and payload. This is much more type-friendly and is a
standard way of avoiding stupid mistakes.
Now they each occur in one place - {{PTransform}}, {{SdkFunctionSpec}}, and
{{Coder}}, respectively. So we could just inline the fields. That seems much
better to me.
{code}
message Udf {
string urn;
bytes payload;
string environment_id;
}
messsage Coder {
string id;
string urn;
bytes payload;
repeated string component_coder_ids;
}
message PTransform {
.. all the existing stuff ...
string urn;
bytes payload;
}
{code}
This makes the differences between the three very obvious.
I am only hesitant because the current protos represent a compromise that made
all parties satisfied, but none happy. So bikeshedding is a danger.
> PTransform spec should not reuse FunctionSpec
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BEAM-3223
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3223
> Project: Beam
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: beam-model
> Reporter: Henning Rohde
> Assignee: Henning Rohde
> Labels: portability
>
> We should add a new type instead, TransformSpec, say, or just inline a URN
> and payload. It's confusing otherwise.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
