I also prefer the first alternative. Greets, Till
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > I think the first one is more intuitive as well.. > > Greetings, > Stephan > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Szabó Péter <nemderogator...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The first one looks great and more compact. I think, the second one is > less > > intuitive. > > > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > 2015-01-05 10:46 GMT+01:00 Gyula Fóra <gyf...@apache.org>: > > > > > Hey guys, > > > > > > We have been discussing the possible syntaxes for doing temporal > > operators > > > on DataStreams(join, corss, cogroup etc) with Paris and we have come up > > > with two alternatives. > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > ds1.join(ds2).onWindow(5, seconds).every(2, > > > seconds).where(...).equalTo(...) > > > > > > 2. > > > > > > ds1.connect(ds2).onWindow(5, seconds).every(2, > > > seconds).join().where(...).equalTo(...) > > > > > > > > > > > > Basically the difference is that in the second case we produce a binary > > > stream of 2 types by the connect method and we create a window on that > > > before join/cross. While in the first case the join/cross/etc is the > > method > > > of the DataStream itself and we define the window after calling > > > join/cross/etc > > > > > > We currently have the first one. > > > > > > Which one do you think is the more intuitive? (Or propose an > alternative) > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Gyula & Paris > > > > > >
