Generally what is suggested here makes sense to me. However, why have you decided to resubmit the FLIP with a newer number rather than following up on FLIP-313? The only difference I see between the two FLIPs is the options/hints design. Could you elaborate where the differences come from?
Best, Dawid On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 at 20:48, Alan Sheinberg <asheinb...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > I'd like to start a discussion of FLIP-498: AsyncTableFunction for async > table function support [1] > > This feature proposes exposing AsyncTableFunction as a proper user defined > function. The type already exists for Lookup Joins, but isn't usable as > other UDFs. This FLIP would bring it up to parity with others. > > The motivation is similar to other async cases, namely improving > performance while issuing long-latency calls to external systems. This is > similar to AsyncScalarFunction, which exists in Flink. > > I realize this was effectively proposed in the past in FLIP 313. [2] This > re-proposes that general feature and gives an update with additional > details informed by work on AsyncScalarFunction. > > Looking forward to your feedback and suggestions. > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-498%3A+AsyncTableFunction+for+async+table+function+support > [2] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-313%3A+Add+support+of+User+Defined+AsyncTableFunction > > Thanks, > Alan >
