Re: [DISCUSS] PTransform.named vs. named apply

+1 On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:27 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: > +1 > > Regards > JB > > On 06/23/2016 12:17 AM, Ben Chambers wrote: > > Based on a recent PR (https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/468) > I > > was reminded of the confusion around the use of > >

Re: [DISCUSS] PTransform.named vs. named apply

+1 Regards JB On 06/23/2016 12:17 AM, Ben Chambers wrote: Based on a recent PR (https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/468) I was reminded of the confusion around the use of .apply(transform.named(someName)) and .apply(someName, transform). This is one of things I’ve wanted to cleanup

Re: [DISCUSS] PTransform.named vs. named apply

+1 on your proposed solution On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Ben Chambers wrote: > Based on a recent PR (https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/468) I > was reminded of the confusion around the use of > .apply(transform.named(someName)) and .apply(someName,

Re: [DISCUSS] Beam data plane serialization tech

I wanted to say a bit more to clarify and enliven this discussion. My use of the term "data plane" may have been confusing. I didn't mean to focus it quite so much on the encoded elements. What I meant to discuss was the entirety of performance-sensitive interactions between the runner and