The packaging has been taken up by other names, module is now a java only
construct.

Thks,
Amol


On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Sandesh Hegde <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Earlier the vision was, module can contain widgets/UI along with the
> operators. So it made sense to have that name.
> If that is not the case then +1 for CompositeOperator
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:53 PM Amol Kekre <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Good point. +1
> >
> > Thks
> > Amol
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Sasha Parfenov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1.
> > >
> > > Everybody is already familiar with concept of an Operators in Apex.  It
> > is
> > > best to keep that terminology, and use CompositeOperator to indicate
> they
> > > related to Operators, rather than introduce a new concept of Modules.
> > >
> > > This will also have a significant impact on documentation, where word
> > > Operator can continue to serve interchangeably for Operator or
> > > CompositeOperator, instead of always having to say "Operators and
> > Modules".
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sasha
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:10 PM, David Yan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > From the javadoc of com.datatorrent.api.Module in Apex Core:
> > > >
> > > > A Module is a component which can be added to the DAG similar to the
> > > > operator, using addModule API. The module should implement
> populateDAG
> > > > method, which will be called by the platform, and DAG populated by
> the
> > > > module will be replaced in place of the module.
> > > >
> > > > However, the word "module" is very overloaded, and it is too abstract
> > and
> > > > general to describe the concept. The same term is also used by maven
> > for
> > > > example.
> > > >
> > > > Since the interface is marked "Evolving" and because of the recent
> > > > introduction, there are very few users using it if any, I would like
> to
> > > > propose that we change the name "Module" to "CompositeOperator".
> > > >
> > > > Please share your opinion. Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to