Github user koeninger commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3798#issuecomment-72691392
Regarding naming, I agree. The name has been a point of discussion for a
month, how to get some consensus?
Regarding Java wrappers, there have already been a number of changes
directed at java compatibility (array of Leader instead of a map[topic,
broker], .create in addition to .apply). I wonder how relevant those are
if we're doing separate java wrappers (which yes, I agree should be in a
follow-on PR)
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Patrick Wendell <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I took a pass through the public API. I'm not very familiar with Kafka so
> it was somewhat slow going. However, some reactions:
>
> 1. We should try to tighten, simplify, and clarify the way we name and
> document everything in this public API. Most of the comments were about
> this. The most important IMO is coming up with a good name for the new
> streams returned and clearly explaining how they differ from the old
Kafka
> stream. To me, the main differences seems to be in the way we (a)
decide
> what goes into which batch and (b) actually ingest the data. I proposed
> javadoc and naming scheme that emphasizing that distinction.
> 2. Is there plans to add a Java and Python wrappers here next? Those
> are straightforward and it would be good to have them. Maybe in a
follow on
> PR?
>
> â
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/3798#issuecomment-72617088>.
>
---
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.
---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
