Renaming the core operators is fine with me, but I would not touch API facing classes. A big +1 for Timo's suggestion.
2015-04-16 6:30 GMT-05:00 Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org>: > I share Stephans opinion. > > By the way, we could also find a common name for operators with two > inputs. Sometimes it's "TwoInputXXX", "DualInputXXX", "BinaryInputXXX"... > pretty inconsistent. > > > On 15.04.2015 17:48, Till Rohrmann wrote: > >> I would also be in favour of making the distinction between the API and >> common API layer more clear by using different names. This will ease the >> understanding of the source code. >> >> In the wake of a possible renaming we could also get rid of the legacy >> code >> org.apache.flink.optimizer.dag.MatchNode and >> rename org.apache.flink.runtime.operators.MatchDriver into JoinDriver to >> make the naming more consistent. >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> On 15 Apr 2015, at 15:01, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> I think we can rename the base operators. >>>> >>>> Renaming the subclass of DataSet would be extremely api breaking. I >>>> think >>>> that is not worth it. >>>> >>> Oh, that's right. We return MapOperator for DataSet operations. Stephan's >>> point makes sense. >>> >> >
