Github user aljoscha commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/3336#discussion_r101983507
--- Diff:
flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/common/state/MapState.java ---
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+ * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
+ * distributed with this work for additional information
+ * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
+ * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+ * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+ * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+
+package org.apache.flink.api.common.state;
+
+import org.apache.flink.annotation.PublicEvolving;
+
+import java.io.IOException;
+import java.util.Iterator;
+import java.util.Map;
+
+/**
+ * {@link State} interface for partitioned key-value state. The key-value
pair can be
+ * added, updated and retrieved.
+ *
+ * <p>The state is accessed and modified by user functions, and
checkpointed consistently
+ * by the system as part of the distributed snapshots.
+ *
+ * <p>The state is only accessible by functions applied on a
KeyedDataStream. The key is
+ * automatically supplied by the system, so the function always sees the
value mapped to the
+ * key of the current element. That way, the system can handle stream and
state partitioning
+ * consistently together.
+ *
+ * @param <UK> Type of the keys in the state.
+ * @param <UV> Type of the values in the state.
+ */
+@PublicEvolving
+public interface MapState<UK, UV> extends AppendingState<Map<UK, UV>,
Iterable<Map.Entry<UK, UV>>> {
--- End diff --
Exactly, the semantics are different from how they are described on
`AppendingState` and from how it is used. `MapState` can still have a
`add(Map<UK, UV> map)` method but I don't think it makes sense that it is an
`AppendingState`. What are the use cases where a user is expected to have an
`AppendingState<Map<K, V>, Map<K, V>>` instead of simply having a `MapState<K,
V>`?
As I said before, the semantics of `MapState.add()` would be like
`ValueState.update()` and `ValueState` is also not an `AppendingState`. I think
a `MultiMapState` that would be like a `Map<K, Iterable<V>>` (and would have
the semantics of a `ListState`) would be able to satisfy `AppendingState` but
I'm not sure whether we would need the interface there.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at [email protected] or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
