+1 short design doc would be cool. wt., 4 lut 2020, 21:16 użytkownik Tomasz Urbaszek < tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com> napisał:
> Do you think we should start with some design doc for that? In this > way, we can work out the best solution and allow other to add 2 cents? > > T. > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 8:37 PM Daniel Imberman > <daniel.imber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think if we’re not breaking any other operators (which I doubt we are) > it’s a great 2.0 feature. It would also look great in a “What’s New in > Airflow 2.0” announcement ;). > > > > Docs are always a challenge, but we could set up a google doc and hack > it out in a day or two. > > > > +1 > > > > via Newton Mail [ > https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=dx&cv=10.0.32&pv=10.14.6&source=email_footer_2 > ] > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:29 AM, Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > wrote: > > I like the idea, especially the backwards compatibility. > > > > I would love to understand more about whether it will work (it looks like > > it will) without modifying the 100s of operators we already have. If so, > > this looks like a nice addition to the current way how we define Dags and > > even allows for incremental migration from the "traditional" to > > "functional" Dag definition pattern. It does not enforce it but it opens > up > > new possibilities without changing basic paradigms of Airflow. > > > > It looks like we could even make it available in 2.0 as there are hardly > > any dependencies and very low risk with introducing such change. I think > > the biggest challenge will be to write good documentation and making sure > > that examples are there - but maybe we could even somewhat automate it > and > > generate some part of the "functional variants" for the examples we have? > > > > WDYT Dan, others ? > > > > J. > > > > -- > > Tomasz Urbaszek > Polidea | Software Engineer > > M: +48 505 628 493 > E: tomasz.urbas...@polidea.com > > Unique Tech > Check out our projects! >
