I also think that the first one is more intuitive. — Chiwan Park (Sent with iPhone)
> On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:51 PM, Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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 >>>> >>> >>
