Yes - a few but cannot share the details - protected under NDA - ping me in private and I can probably be able to give you more generic details on similar cooked up examples.
The part that follows “e.g.” below is an example that probably is sufficient to infer the use case logically, I think. I shared that to exemplify how changing the semantics will break semver. — Chetan On 11/25/15, 3:51 PM, "Thomas Weise" <[email protected]> wrote: >Do you have a specific example? > >I see this happening in committed(), but not in checkpointed() where the >checkpoint remains intermediate, whether it was copied to HDFS or not. > > >On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Chetan Narsude (cnarsude) < >[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >Until we have this, how about we restore the previous behavior >> >temporarily? >> >Calling checkpointed() immediately does not seem to pose any practical >> >issue but ensures that the code that was written under this assumption >>is >> >not broken. >> >> We can¹t do it. It would be incorrect. It breaks all the other code that >> (unassumingly) correctly complied to the semantics. e.g. an operator >>which >> informs interesting parties that the checkpointed data is available for >> immediate consumption from storage. >> >> ‹ >> Chetan >> >>
