Re: [DISCUSS] Custom Control Tuples Design

2 sounds good. Have you thought about what the method would look like. On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Bhupesh Chawda wrote: > Yes, that makes sense. > We have following options: > 1. Make the annotation false by default and force the user to forward the > control

[GitHub] apex-malhar pull request #500: APEXMALHAR-2343 #resolve #comment Count Accum...

Github user brightchen closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/apex-malhar/pull/500 --- 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

[jira] [Commented] (APEXMALHAR-2343) Count Accumulation should only increase one for each tuple

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXMALHAR-2343?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15796610#comment-15796610 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on APEXMALHAR-2343: Github user brightchen closed the pull

Re: [DISCUSS] Custom Control Tuples Design

Yes David, that is correct. The annotation is true by default. However, it may happen that in the course of processing, we may want to stop the propagation of control tuples to the downstream operators. In this case, we should have an option to block the control tuples propagation to downstream

[jira] [Commented] (APEXCORE-598) Embedded mode execution does not use APPLICATION_PATH for checkpointing

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-598?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15795674#comment-15795674 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on APEXCORE-598: - GitHub user tweise opened a pull request:

[GitHub] apex-core pull request #441: APEXCORE-598 Write checkpoints to APPLICATION_P...

GitHub user tweise opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/441 APEXCORE-598 Write checkpoints to APPLICATION_PATH in embedded execution mode. @davidyan74 or @vrozov please review. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git

[jira] [Created] (APEXCORE-598) Embedded mode execution does not use APPLICATION_PATH for checkpointing

Thomas Weise created APEXCORE-598: - Summary: Embedded mode execution does not use APPLICATION_PATH for checkpointing Key: APEXCORE-598 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-598 Project:

[jira] [Updated] (APEXCORE-598) Embedded mode execution does not use APPLICATION_PATH for checkpointing

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-598?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Thomas Weise updated APEXCORE-598: -- Affects Version/s: 3.5.0 > Embedded mode execution does not use APPLICATION_PATH for

Re: [DISCUSS] Custom Control Tuples Design

The annotation should be true by default. If an operator does not care about the control tuples, it should propagate them because the downstream might care about it. For example, let's say the original DAG looks like: A->B And A emits control tuples that B cares about, and of course along with

[GitHub] apex-core pull request #431: Add Apache 2.0 license to META-INF/services fil...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/431 --- 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

[jira] [Resolved] (APEXMALHAR-2374) Recursive support for AbstractFileInputOperator

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXMALHAR-2374?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Bhupesh Chawda resolved APEXMALHAR-2374. Resolution: Fixed Fix Version/s: 3.7.0 > Recursive support for

[jira] [Commented] (APEXMALHAR-2374) Recursive support for AbstractFileInputOperator

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXMALHAR-2374?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15795127#comment-15795127 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on APEXMALHAR-2374: Github user asfgit closed the pull request

[GitHub] apex-malhar pull request #527: APEXMALHAR-2374 Calling scan recursively if t...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/apex-malhar/pull/527 --- 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Custom Control Tuples Design

Hi All, I have created a review only PR based on the discussion so far. This will also help make the discussion easier and we can continue with the review in parallel. Here is the PR: https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/440 Please help review this. I am still working on documentation and

[jira] [Commented] (APEXCORE-580) Interface for processing and emitting control tuples

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/APEXCORE-580?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15795105#comment-15795105 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on APEXCORE-580: - GitHub user bhupeshchawda opened a pull request:

[GitHub] apex-core pull request #440: [REVIEW ONLY] - APEXCORE-580-581 custom control...

GitHub user bhupeshchawda opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/440 [REVIEW ONLY] - APEXCORE-580-581 custom control tuple support You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull https://github.com/bhupeshchawda/apex-core

[GitHub] apex-core pull request #439: APEXCORE-595: Don't update committedWindowId wh...

GitHub user tushargosavi opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/apex-core/pull/439 APEXCORE-595: Don't update committedWindowId when all partitions are removed. @tweise please review. You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull