I agree with the requirement. But I think the requirement here is superceed by requirement at https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d1e282047399558a4f04aab186c0d986114d353dcaf6d6c76a2a3a35@%3Cdev.apex.apache.org%3E
Having PojoInnerJoin to emit a POJO instead of map overrides this. I suggest to do that first and if still there is a scope we look into this. -Chinmay. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Shunxin Lu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Hitesh, > You are absolutely right. The PojoInnerJoin accumulation we have now is > only > to test the implementation of WindowedMergeOperator. I did not considered > the case you mentioned when developing, so please make changes to fix this. > Thanks, > Shunxin > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 4:25 AM, Hitesh Kapoor <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > In PojoInnerJoin accumulation same field names are emitted as single > field > > even if we don't take a join on them. For example consider the following > 2 > > POJO's on 2 streams > > > > POJO1 > > { > > id: Int > > age : String > > } > > > > POJO2 > > { > > id: Int > > age : String > > name : String > > } > > > > If we wish to take a join only on field id then the resulting stream > > contains the common named field(age) only from POJO2. > > So I am confused whether the resulting stream should contain the field > > 'age' from only POJO1 (or only POJO2) or it should contain the field > 'age' > > from both the POJOs. > > > > I think it is a bug which should be fixed and the resulting stream should > > contain common named field from both the POJOs (and maybe rename it in > the > > final output). Let me know your thoughts on it. > > > > Regards, > > Hitesh > > >
