strong +1 best, JingsongLee------------------------------------------------------------------From:Tang Jijun(上海_技术部_数据平台_唐觊隽) <tangji...@yhd.com>Time:2017 Apr 12 (Wed) 10:39To:dev@beam.apache.org <dev@beam.apache.org>Subject:答复: Renaming SideOutput +1 more clearer
-----邮件原件----- 发件人: Ankur Chauhan [mailto:an...@malloc64.com] 发送时间: 2017年4月12日 10:36 收件人: dev@beam.apache.org 主题: Re: Renaming SideOutput +1 this is pretty much the topmost things that I found odd when starting with the beam model. It would definitely be more intuitive to have a consistent name. Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 11, 2017, at 18:29, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: > > +1 > >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017, at 02:34, Thomas Groh wrote: >> I think that's a good idea. I would call the outputs of a ParDo the >> "Main Output" and "Additional Outputs" - it seems like an easy way to >> make it clear that there's one output that is always expected, and >> there may be more. >> >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Robert Bradshaw < >> rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote: >> >>> We should do some renaming in Python too. Right now we have >>> SideOutputValue which I'd propose naming TaggedOutput or something >>> like that. >>> >>> Should the docs change too? >>> https://beam.apache.org/documentation/programming-guide/#transforms- >>> sideio >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Kenneth Knowles >>> <k...@google.com.invalid> >>> wrote: >>>> +1 ditto about sideInput and sideOutput not actually being related >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Robert Bradshaw < >>>> rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1, I think this is a lot clearer. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Stephen Sisk >>>>> <s...@google.com.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> strong +1 for changing the name away from sideOutput - the fact >>>>>> that sideInput and sideOutput are not really related was >>>>>> definitely a >>> source >>>>> of >>>>>> confusion for me when learning beam. >>>>>> >>>>>> S >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:56 PM Thomas Groh >>>>>> <tg...@google.com.invalid >>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey everyone: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd like to rename DoFn.Context#sideOutput to #output (in the >>>>>>> Java >>> SDK). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Having two methods, both named output, one which takes the "main >>> output >>>>>>> type" and one that takes a tag to specify the type more clearly >>>>>>> communicates the actual behavior - sideOutput isn't a "special" >>>>>>> way >>> to >>>>>>> output, it's the same as output(T), just to a specified PCollection. >>>>> This >>>>>>> will help pipeline authors understand the actual behavior of >>> outputting >>>>> to >>>>>>> a tag, and detangle it from "sideInput", which is a special way >>>>>>> to >>>>> receive >>>>>>> input. Giving them the same name means that it's not even >>>>>>> strange to >>>>> call >>>>>>> output and provide the main output type, which is what we want - >>> it's a >>>>>>> more specific way to output, but does not have different >>> restrictions or >>>>>>> capabilities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is also a pretty small change within the SDK - it touches >>>>>>> about >>> 20 >>>>>>> files, and the changes are pretty automatic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thomas >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>
