[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10327?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16617218#comment-16617218
]
Piotr Nowojski commented on FLINK-10327:
----------------------------------------
[~kkl0u], my argument in favour of exposing {{processWatermark}} calls is that
operators are public api and I don't understand the argument that we shouldn't
expose them in functions, when they are already exposed and publicly available
on the lower level. Especially if there is an easy way to do so. Except maybe
of the issue, how to handle keyed state and what should happen on state
accesses during {{processWatermark}} calls. Maybe this is a good argument why
we shouldn't expose {{processWatermark}} to higher level functions?
> Pass processWatermark calls from (Co)ProcessOperator to (Co)ProcessFunction
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-10327
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-10327
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Streaming
> Reporter: Piotr Nowojski
> Assignee: Piotr Nowojski
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
>
> Currently {{CoProcessFunction}} can not react to changes watermark
> advancement. By passing {{processWatermark}} calls to function we would give
> a way to perform some actions on watermark advancement, like state clean up
> or emitting some results after accumulating some data.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
