Since we are talking about common API, what was the original intention or design for this layer?
>From the doc: " The Common API operator exists only in order for the flink-java and flink-scalapackages to not have a dependency on the optimizer." Currently the Java API Operator is converted into common APIs via recursive call from ExecutionEnvironement#createProgramPlan which delegate it to OperatorTranslation. Just wanted to know more about why the original approach is taking this route. Thanks, - Henry On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > Okay, it seems the consensus forms around not breaking the API. > > When it comes to the *OperatorBase - should we rename them or simply get > rid of them (remove the common API). If we want to remove them, a > precondition is to remove the Record API, and for that, we should migrate > the Record-API-based test cases. > > Stephan > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +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. >> > >>> >> > >> >> > > >> > >>
