Thanks for commenting. Yes, I think it's worth adding this API regardless (pending no strong objection) but removing the old one (which I'd like to do) would he a higher bar for sure (though still probably achievable).
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > I commented on the doc. Overall, I'm positively disposed, but wary of the > magnitude of the change. Lots of strong points and good ideas for > clarifying things for users. > > Can we do some of it ASAP regardless? On the front end, we could revamp our > examples to use the proposed design pattern. On the back end, we could > adjust the portability framework protos. > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Robert Bradshaw < > rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > >> In the effort to simplify and clean up the Beam API, especially with >> an eye towards making Beam more friendly towards interactive use, I >> propose getting rid of the Pipline object. See the full proposal at >> https://s.apache.org/no-beam-pipeline . I'd like to hear people's >> thoughts on the idea. >> >> - Robert >>
