Re: Scala DSL

+Rafal & Andrew again I am leaning DSL for two reasons: (1) scio uses the existing java execution environment (and won't have a language-specific fn harness of its own), and (2) it changes the abstractions that users interact with. I recently saw a scio repl demo from Reuven -- there's some

Re: Scala DSL

Hi Neville, thanks for the update ! As it's another language support, and to clearly identify the purpose, I would say sdks/scala. Regards JB On 06/23/2016 11:56 PM, Neville Li wrote: +folks in my team On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:57 PM Neville Li wrote: Hi all,

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

A little late... but yes! +1 On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > ±1 for the named apply > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 07:07 Robert Bradshaw > wrote: > > > +1, I think it makes more sense to name the application of a

Re: Scala DSL

+folks in my team On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:57 PM Neville Li wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm the co-author of Scio and am in the > progress of moving code to Beam (BEAM-302 > ). Just wondering if >

Scala DSL

Hi all, I'm the co-author of Scio and am in the progress of moving code to Beam (BEAM-302 ). Just wondering if sdks/scala is the right place for this code or if something like dsls/scio is a better choice? What do

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

FYI: Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-370 to track changes made in this direction. On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:13 PM Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > ±1 for the named apply > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 07:07 Robert Bradshaw > wrote: > >

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

±1 for the named apply On Thu, Jun 23, 2016, 07:07 Robert Bradshaw wrote: > +1, I think it makes more sense to name the application of a transform > rather than the transform itself. (Still mulling on how best to do > this with Python...) > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at