Hi Kenneth, Thank you for your feedback about the Capability Matrix! I have several questions about it:
*Feedback: I think we can also remove rows that are not started or not complete in the Beam Model, and remove the Beam Model column.* Question: If we remove the Beam model column the whole point of making it static and showing the capabilities would be lost. Isn't the point to show capabilities of Beam vs. other tools? *Feedback: I think Splittable DoFn really just deserves one row for bounded, one for unbounded, and any caveats go in the details.* Question: How would it look like? All this in one matrix or separate? *Feedback: All the windowing rows can be condensed into "Basic windowing support" and "Merging windowing support" and any runner that can only run a couple WindowFns can have details in the caveats. At this point any runner that doesn't do Windowing by invoking a user's WindowFn simply doesn't really support windowing in the model.* Suggestion: Do we still have a separate matrix for only two(?) rows? Kind regards, Agnieszka On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 7:49 PM Griselda Cuevas <g...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks Kenn, this is super helpful. > > > > On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 09:57, Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > >> For the capability matrix, part of the problem is that the rows don't all >> make that much sense, as we've discussed a couple times. >> >> But assuming we keep the content identical, maybe we could just have the >> collapsed view and make the table selectable where *just* the selected cell >> controls content below? You won't be able to do side-by-side comparisons of >> the full text of things, but you will be able to keep the overview and >> drill in one at a time quickly. Just one idea. >> >> A couple ways to save space without rearchitecting it: >> >> - Apache Hadoop MapReduce and JStorm can be removed as they are on >> branches, not released. >> - I think we can also remove rows that are not started or not complete >> in the Beam Model, and remove the Beam Model column. >> - I think Splittable DoFn really just deserves one row for bounded, one >> for unbounded, and any caveats go in the details. >> - All the windowing rows can be condensed into "Basic windowing support" >> and "Merging windowing support" and any runner that can only run a couple >> WindowFns can have details in the caveats. At this point any runner that >> doesn't do Windowing by invoking a user's WindowFn simply doesn't really >> support windowing in the model. >> - "Configurable triggering" can absorb "Event-time triggers", >> "Processing-time triggers", "Count triggers", and "Composite triggers". >> Same. At this point any runner that doesn't support the whole triggering >> language doesn't really support triggers fully. >> >> Kenn >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 7:39 PM Griselda Cuevas <g...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, another page that's getting a refresh this time around is the >>> Capability Matrix, which is one of the most critical pages for users as >>> they evaluate the current support for each of the Beam runners. >>> >>> The situation we'd like to get your input on is: How do we optimize the >>> expanded version of the capability matrix, which explains the level of >>> support in each of the functions? >>> >>> Right now the text gets in the way of analyzing the table and makes >>> reading hard. You can see a screenshot in the Beam wiki here [1], the file >>> is titled current_CapMatExt. >>> >>> One of the proposed solutions is that after clicking the link "(click to >>> expand details)", we load a new page that has the corresponding table to >>> the click (what, where, when, how) at the top, and all the content of each >>> runner/function gets displayed at the bottom of the page, the file with the >>> proposed design is also in the Beam wiki here [1] and the file's name is >>> proposed_CapMatExt. This solution isn't perfect either, since we'd need to >>> move too much text under the table and reading isn't much easier. >>> >>> Do you have suggestions/ideas in how to condense the extended version? >>> >>> Share with us your feedback through this week, >>> Thanks! >>> G >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BEAM/Website+Redesign+Files >>> >> -- Agnieszka Sell Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Project Manager M: *+48 504 901 334* <+48504901334> E: agnieszka.s...@polidea.com [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work> [image: Github] <https://github.com/Polidea> [image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/Polidea.Software> [image: Twitter] <https://twitter.com/polidea> [image: Linkedin] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/polidea> [image: Instagram] <https://instagram.com/polidea> Unique Tech Check out our projects! <https://www.polidea.com/our-work>
