+1 for keeping the API. Even though this will not change your initial concern much, Aljoscha :) I agree with you that it would be more consistent to call the result of an operator OperatorDataSet.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > >>> > >> > > >
