Can we conclude this thread with the following resolution: make variables private and provide protected access methods? This should be done in both master and release branch. Also, document the semantic versioning break for users.
~ Bhupesh _______________________________________________________ Bhupesh Chawda E: bhup...@datatorrent.com | Twitter: @bhupeshsc www.datatorrent.com | apex.apache.org On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Vlad Rozov <v.ro...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > I am slightly in favor of getters and setters approach as well. Likely > hotspot will optimize extra call anyway. > > Thank you, > Vlad > > Отправлено с iPhone > > > On May 15, 2017, at 10:51, Bhupesh Chawda <bhup...@datatorrent.com> > wrote: > > > > I also suggest going for 1. > > But I think we should make variables private and provide protected > getters > > and setters. > > > > ~ Bhupesh > > > > > > On May 15, 2017 23:18, "Bhupesh Chawda" <bhup...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > > > > Actually Ajay discovered this when upgrading the core dependency test. > > One of the tests was failing. > > > > ~ Bhupesh > > > > > > On May 15, 2017 23:15, "Pramod Immaneni" <pra...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > > > > I would suggest going with 1. > > > > Bhupesh how did you see this? Did it see it as part of working on an > > operator in Malhar? > > > >> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Vlad Rozov <v.ro...@datatorrent.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> There is a possible change in operators behavior caused by changes that > >> were introduced in the release 3.6.0 into DefaultInputPort and > >> DefaultOutputPort. Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira > >> /browse/APEXCORE-722. We need to agree how to proceed. > >> > >> 1. Break semantic versioning for the Default Input and Output Ports in > the > >> next release (3.7.0), declare protected variables as private and provide > >> protected access method. Another option is to rename protected variables > > to > >> use less common names (for example __count). > >> 2. Keep protected variables with the risk that the following common > >> operator design pattern will be used accidentally by existing operators > > and > >> newly designed operators: > >> > >> public Operator extends BaseOperator { > >> private int count; > >> public DefaultInputPort in = new DefaultInputPort() { > >> @Override > >> public void process(Object tuple) > >> { > >> count++; // updates DefaultInputPort count, not Operator count! > >> } > >> } > >> } > >> > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Vlad > >> >
