Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Kostas Kloudas]

Thanks Aljioscha

In fact the onFire() method proposed in the JIRA is also included in the 
FLIP. The onCleanup() I agree that it would be a nice addition as it makes 
the API more complete. Now we have an onMerge(), an onFire() and 
onCleanup() which allow a trigger to react to every milestone in the 
lifespan of a window.

Kostas

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 5:31 PM, Aljoscha Krettek  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I opened this Jira which should help in implementing the Trigger DSL but is
> also independent in that it just enhances the range of things that can be
> done with a Trigger:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4415
> 
> Cheers,
> Aljoscha
> 
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 14:38 Jark Wu  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Aljoscha, Kostas, thanks for your detailed explanation. It makes sense.
>> 
>> According to the discarding and accumulating, the FLIP says “the mode of
>> parent trigger overwrites that of its children”. That means Trigger decide
>> whether to discard window contents after firing , right ?  But I find the
>> origin google doc[1] proposed the Trigger only decide whether to fire or
>> not while the purging behavior is determined by a setting on
>> WindowedStream. Such as :
>> 
>> datastream.keyBy(0)
>>  .window(windowAssigner)
>>  .trigger(compositeTrigger)
>>  .accumulating()
>> 
>> 
>> [1]
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xp-YBf87vLTduYSivgqWVEMjYUmkA-hyb4muX3KRl08/edit#heading=h.e40hqtu6za6u
>> <
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xp-YBf87vLTduYSivgqWVEMjYUmkA-hyb4muX3KRl08/edit#heading=h.e40hqtu6za6u
>>> 
>> 
>> - Jark Wu
>> 
>>> 在 2016年8月17日，下午6:12，Aljoscha Krettek  写道：
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> I think that would blow up state since there can be several triggers that
>>> need this kind of state, Any and All come to mind, possibly. If each of
>>> those keeps state that's at least a byte per trigger. If the finished
>> state
>>> were kept centrally by the TriggerRunner it would just be one byte for
>>> everything, in most cases.
>>> 
>>> As I said, in some cases keeping that extra bit can be avoided. For
>>> example, if you have Repeat.forever(Some.trigger()) you know that the
>>> finished bit will always be false and so you don't keep any state in the
>>> TriggerRunner. If every trigger manually does that bookkeeping you remove
>>> that possibility while increasing complexity in each Trigger
>> implementation.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Aljoscha
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 12:05 Kostas Kloudas >> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hi Aljoscha,
 
 On the Repeat.? addition, I think that each trigger will have to have
 its own implementation, e.g. the CountTrigger should just set a dummy
 value in the counter in order to know if it should fire again or not.
 
 In other case, we will have to add more state and this can lead to
 significant
 performance degradation, as in most cases this state has to be checked
>> on
 every element.
 
 Another potential solution, which I am not sure if it covers all cases,
 could
 be to have a State abstraction like CompositeState, apart from the
 Value, List, Reduce, Fold, which can fetch more than one types of state
 with one round trip to the backend. Imagine having the “counter" and the
 “canceled” states in the same entry in the backend and always fetch them
 together. This can lead to zero additional cost for the extra state.
 
 What do you think?
 
 Kostas
 
> On Aug 17, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek 
 wrote:
> 
> Regarding Repeat.forever() and the default being to not repeat. The
 simple
> reason is that Beam (née Google Dataflow) provides basically the same
 thing
> with their trigger DSL and that their triggers behave like this. I
>> think
 it
> would not be beneficial to have the same feature in two systems in that
> space where the behavior is the opposite. That would make it confusing
 for
> users.
> 
> On the implementation side, I think in most cases you need to have a
>> way
 of
> telling when triggers are finished or not anyways. There could be a
 central
> component in the TriggerRunner that has a finished bit for every
>> trigger
 in
> the tree. In most cases this would be a simple byte. Triggers could set
 and
> query this finished bit. In some cases, where you know that triggers
>> can
> never finish you could have a dummy implementation of the finished set
 that
> does not store any state and always returns false when queried.
> 
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 11:52 Aljoscha Krettek 
 wrote:
> 
>> Kostas already nicely explained this!
>> 
>> I just want to give some theoretical background. I see the underlying
 idea
>> of triggers similar to predicates, i.e.

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Aljoscha Krettek]

Hi,
I opened this Jira which should help in implementing the Trigger DSL but is
also independent in that it just enhances the range of things that can be
done with a Trigger:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-4415

Cheers,
Aljoscha

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 14:38 Jark Wu  wrote:

> Hi Aljoscha, Kostas, thanks for your detailed explanation. It makes sense.
>
> According to the discarding and accumulating, the FLIP says “the mode of
> parent trigger overwrites that of its children”. That means Trigger decide
> whether to discard window contents after firing , right ?  But I find the
> origin google doc[1] proposed the Trigger only decide whether to fire or
> not while the purging behavior is determined by a setting on
> WindowedStream. Such as :
>
> datastream.keyBy(0)
>   .window(windowAssigner)
>   .trigger(compositeTrigger)
>   .accumulating()
>
>
> [1]
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xp-YBf87vLTduYSivgqWVEMjYUmkA-hyb4muX3KRl08/edit#heading=h.e40hqtu6za6u
> <
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xp-YBf87vLTduYSivgqWVEMjYUmkA-hyb4muX3KRl08/edit#heading=h.e40hqtu6za6u
> >
>
> - Jark Wu
>
> > 在 2016年8月17日，下午6:12，Aljoscha Krettek  写道：
> >
> > Hi,
> > I think that would blow up state since there can be several triggers that
> > need this kind of state, Any and All come to mind, possibly. If each of
> > those keeps state that's at least a byte per trigger. If the finished
> state
> > were kept centrally by the TriggerRunner it would just be one byte for
> > everything, in most cases.
> >
> > As I said, in some cases keeping that extra bit can be avoided. For
> > example, if you have Repeat.forever(Some.trigger()) you know that the
> > finished bit will always be false and so you don't keep any state in the
> > TriggerRunner. If every trigger manually does that bookkeeping you remove
> > that possibility while increasing complexity in each Trigger
> implementation.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Aljoscha
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 12:05 Kostas Kloudas  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Aljoscha,
> >>
> >> On the Repeat.? addition, I think that each trigger will have to have
> >> its own implementation, e.g. the CountTrigger should just set a dummy
> >> value in the counter in order to know if it should fire again or not.
> >>
> >> In other case, we will have to add more state and this can lead to
> >> significant
> >> performance degradation, as in most cases this state has to be checked
> on
> >> every element.
> >>
> >> Another potential solution, which I am not sure if it covers all cases,
> >> could
> >> be to have a State abstraction like CompositeState, apart from the
> >> Value, List, Reduce, Fold, which can fetch more than one types of state
> >> with one round trip to the backend. Imagine having the “counter" and the
> >> “canceled” states in the same entry in the backend and always fetch them
> >> together. This can lead to zero additional cost for the extra state.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Kostas
> >>
> >>> On Aug 17, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Regarding Repeat.forever() and the default being to not repeat. The
> >> simple
> >>> reason is that Beam (née Google Dataflow) provides basically the same
> >> thing
> >>> with their trigger DSL and that their triggers behave like this. I
> think
> >> it
> >>> would not be beneficial to have the same feature in two systems in that
> >>> space where the behavior is the opposite. That would make it confusing
> >> for
> >>> users.
> >>>
> >>> On the implementation side, I think in most cases you need to have a
> way
> >> of
> >>> telling when triggers are finished or not anyways. There could be a
> >> central
> >>> component in the TriggerRunner that has a finished bit for every
> trigger
> >> in
> >>> the tree. In most cases this would be a simple byte. Triggers could set
> >> and
> >>> query this finished bit. In some cases, where you know that triggers
> can
> >>> never finish you could have a dummy implementation of the finished set
> >> that
> >>> does not store any state and always returns false when queried.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 11:52 Aljoscha Krettek 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
>  Kostas already nicely explained this!
> 
>  I just want to give some theoretical background. I see the underlying
> >> idea
>  of triggers similar to predicates, i.e.
> 
> >>
> "EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow().withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger)"
>  translates to a predicate "(E and ET) or WT" (where E is a predicate
> >> that
>  is true when we are in early phase, ET is the early trigger and WT is
> >> the
>  watermark trigger). The other trigger translates to "(!E and LT) or
> WT",
>  i.e. it triggers if we're not early and LT is true or if the watermark
>  trigger is true. If we combine the two we get:
> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Jark Wu]

Hi Aljoscha, Kostas, thanks for your detailed explanation. It makes sense.

According to the discarding and accumulating, the FLIP says “the mode of parent 
trigger overwrites that of its children”. That means Trigger decide whether to 
discard window contents after firing , right ?  But I find the origin google 
doc[1] proposed the Trigger only decide whether to fire or not while the 
purging behavior is determined by a setting on WindowedStream. Such as :

datastream.keyBy(0)
  .window(windowAssigner)
  .trigger(compositeTrigger)
  .accumulating()


[1] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xp-YBf87vLTduYSivgqWVEMjYUmkA-hyb4muX3KRl08/edit#heading=h.e40hqtu6za6u
 


- Jark Wu 

> 在 2016年8月17日，下午6:12，Aljoscha Krettek  写道：
> 
> Hi,
> I think that would blow up state since there can be several triggers that
> need this kind of state, Any and All come to mind, possibly. If each of
> those keeps state that's at least a byte per trigger. If the finished state
> were kept centrally by the TriggerRunner it would just be one byte for
> everything, in most cases.
> 
> As I said, in some cases keeping that extra bit can be avoided. For
> example, if you have Repeat.forever(Some.trigger()) you know that the
> finished bit will always be false and so you don't keep any state in the
> TriggerRunner. If every trigger manually does that bookkeeping you remove
> that possibility while increasing complexity in each Trigger implementation.
> 
> Cheers,
> Aljoscha
> 
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 12:05 Kostas Kloudas 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Aljoscha,
>> 
>> On the Repeat.? addition, I think that each trigger will have to have
>> its own implementation, e.g. the CountTrigger should just set a dummy
>> value in the counter in order to know if it should fire again or not.
>> 
>> In other case, we will have to add more state and this can lead to
>> significant
>> performance degradation, as in most cases this state has to be checked on
>> every element.
>> 
>> Another potential solution, which I am not sure if it covers all cases,
>> could
>> be to have a State abstraction like CompositeState, apart from the
>> Value, List, Reduce, Fold, which can fetch more than one types of state
>> with one round trip to the backend. Imagine having the “counter" and the
>> “canceled” states in the same entry in the backend and always fetch them
>> together. This can lead to zero additional cost for the extra state.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> Kostas
>> 
>>> On Aug 17, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Regarding Repeat.forever() and the default being to not repeat. The
>> simple
>>> reason is that Beam (née Google Dataflow) provides basically the same
>> thing
>>> with their trigger DSL and that their triggers behave like this. I think
>> it
>>> would not be beneficial to have the same feature in two systems in that
>>> space where the behavior is the opposite. That would make it confusing
>> for
>>> users.
>>> 
>>> On the implementation side, I think in most cases you need to have a way
>> of
>>> telling when triggers are finished or not anyways. There could be a
>> central
>>> component in the TriggerRunner that has a finished bit for every trigger
>> in
>>> the tree. In most cases this would be a simple byte. Triggers could set
>> and
>>> query this finished bit. In some cases, where you know that triggers can
>>> never finish you could have a dummy implementation of the finished set
>> that
>>> does not store any state and always returns false when queried.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 11:52 Aljoscha Krettek 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 Kostas already nicely explained this!
 
 I just want to give some theoretical background. I see the underlying
>> idea
 of triggers similar to predicates, i.e.
 
>> "EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow().withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger)"
 translates to a predicate "(E and ET) or WT" (where E is a predicate
>> that
 is true when we are in early phase, ET is the early trigger and WT is
>> the
 watermark trigger). The other trigger translates to "(!E and LT) or WT",
 i.e. it triggers if we're not early and LT is true or if the watermark
 trigger is true. If we combine the two we get:
 
 ((E and ET) or WT) and ((!E and LT) or WT)
 
 now we can eliminate the two parts with E and !E because they can never
>> be
 true and are in an "or":
 
 WT and WT
 
 which yield just "WT".
 
 Hope that makes sense to you.
 
 Cheers,
 Aljoscha
 
 
 On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 10:47 Kostas Kloudas <
>> k.klou...@data-artisans.com>
 wrote:
 
> Hello Jark Wu,
> 
> Both of them will work in the new DSL. The idea is that there should
>> be no
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Aljoscha Krettek]

Hi,
I think that would blow up state since there can be several triggers that
need this kind of state, Any and All come to mind, possibly. If each of
those keeps state that's at least a byte per trigger. If the finished state
were kept centrally by the TriggerRunner it would just be one byte for
everything, in most cases.

As I said, in some cases keeping that extra bit can be avoided. For
example, if you have Repeat.forever(Some.trigger()) you know that the
finished bit will always be false and so you don't keep any state in the
TriggerRunner. If every trigger manually does that bookkeeping you remove
that possibility while increasing complexity in each Trigger implementation.

Cheers,
Aljoscha

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 12:05 Kostas Kloudas 
wrote:

> Hi Aljoscha,
>
> On the Repeat.? addition, I think that each trigger will have to have
> its own implementation, e.g. the CountTrigger should just set a dummy
> value in the counter in order to know if it should fire again or not.
>
> In other case, we will have to add more state and this can lead to
> significant
> performance degradation, as in most cases this state has to be checked on
> every element.
>
> Another potential solution, which I am not sure if it covers all cases,
> could
> be to have a State abstraction like CompositeState, apart from the
> Value, List, Reduce, Fold, which can fetch more than one types of state
> with one round trip to the backend. Imagine having the “counter" and the
> “canceled” states in the same entry in the backend and always fetch them
> together. This can lead to zero additional cost for the extra state.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Kostas
>
> > On Aug 17, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek 
> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding Repeat.forever() and the default being to not repeat. The
> simple
> > reason is that Beam (née Google Dataflow) provides basically the same
> thing
> > with their trigger DSL and that their triggers behave like this. I think
> it
> > would not be beneficial to have the same feature in two systems in that
> > space where the behavior is the opposite. That would make it confusing
> for
> > users.
> >
> > On the implementation side, I think in most cases you need to have a way
> of
> > telling when triggers are finished or not anyways. There could be a
> central
> > component in the TriggerRunner that has a finished bit for every trigger
> in
> > the tree. In most cases this would be a simple byte. Triggers could set
> and
> > query this finished bit. In some cases, where you know that triggers can
> > never finish you could have a dummy implementation of the finished set
> that
> > does not store any state and always returns false when queried.
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 11:52 Aljoscha Krettek 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Kostas already nicely explained this!
> >>
> >> I just want to give some theoretical background. I see the underlying
> idea
> >> of triggers similar to predicates, i.e.
> >>
> "EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow().withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger)"
> >> translates to a predicate "(E and ET) or WT" (where E is a predicate
> that
> >> is true when we are in early phase, ET is the early trigger and WT is
> the
> >> watermark trigger). The other trigger translates to "(!E and LT) or WT",
> >> i.e. it triggers if we're not early and LT is true or if the watermark
> >> trigger is true. If we combine the two we get:
> >>
> >> ((E and ET) or WT) and ((!E and LT) or WT)
> >>
> >> now we can eliminate the two parts with E and !E because they can never
> be
> >> true and are in an "or":
> >>
> >> WT and WT
> >>
> >> which yield just "WT".
> >>
> >> Hope that makes sense to you.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Aljoscha
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 10:47 Kostas Kloudas <
> k.klou...@data-artisans.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello Jark Wu,
> >>>
> >>> Both of them will work in the new DSL. The idea is that there should
> be no
> >>> restrictions on the combinations one can do.
> >>>
> >>> Coming to what does the early and the late trigger do, the early
> trigger
> >>> will
> >>> be responsible for specifying when the trigger should fire in the
> period
> >>> between
> >>> the beginning of the window and the time when the watermark passes the
> end
> >>> of the window. The late trigger takes over after the watermark passes
> the
> >>> end of
> >>> the window, and specifies when the trigger should fire in the period
> >>> between the
> >>> endOfWindow and endOfWindow + allowedLateness.
> >>>
> >>> So in the case of the:
> >>>All(EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
> >>>.withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger),
> >>> EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
> >>>.withLateTrigger(lateFiringTrigger))
> >>>
> >>> The trigger will only fire at the end of the window, as this is the
> only
> >>> time both
> >>> triggers will say FIRE.
> >>>
> >>> Although the above 

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Kostas Kloudas]

Hi Aljoscha,

On the Repeat.? addition, I think that each trigger will have to have
its own implementation, e.g. the CountTrigger should just set a dummy
value in the counter in order to know if it should fire again or not.

In other case, we will have to add more state and this can lead to significant
performance degradation, as in most cases this state has to be checked on
every element.

Another potential solution, which I am not sure if it covers all cases, could 
be to have a State abstraction like CompositeState, apart from the 
Value, List, Reduce, Fold, which can fetch more than one types of state
with one round trip to the backend. Imagine having the “counter" and the 
“canceled” states in the same entry in the backend and always fetch them 
together. This can lead to zero additional cost for the extra state.

What do you think?

Kostas

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Aljoscha Krettek  wrote:
> 
> Regarding Repeat.forever() and the default being to not repeat. The simple
> reason is that Beam (née Google Dataflow) provides basically the same thing
> with their trigger DSL and that their triggers behave like this. I think it
> would not be beneficial to have the same feature in two systems in that
> space where the behavior is the opposite. That would make it confusing for
> users.
> 
> On the implementation side, I think in most cases you need to have a way of
> telling when triggers are finished or not anyways. There could be a central
> component in the TriggerRunner that has a finished bit for every trigger in
> the tree. In most cases this would be a simple byte. Triggers could set and
> query this finished bit. In some cases, where you know that triggers can
> never finish you could have a dummy implementation of the finished set that
> does not store any state and always returns false when queried.
> 
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 11:52 Aljoscha Krettek  wrote:
> 
>> Kostas already nicely explained this!
>> 
>> I just want to give some theoretical background. I see the underlying idea
>> of triggers similar to predicates, i.e.
>> "EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow().withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger)"
>> translates to a predicate "(E and ET) or WT" (where E is a predicate that
>> is true when we are in early phase, ET is the early trigger and WT is the
>> watermark trigger). The other trigger translates to "(!E and LT) or WT",
>> i.e. it triggers if we're not early and LT is true or if the watermark
>> trigger is true. If we combine the two we get:
>> 
>> ((E and ET) or WT) and ((!E and LT) or WT)
>> 
>> now we can eliminate the two parts with E and !E because they can never be
>> true and are in an "or":
>> 
>> WT and WT
>> 
>> which yield just "WT".
>> 
>> Hope that makes sense to you.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Aljoscha
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 10:47 Kostas Kloudas 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Jark Wu,
>>> 
>>> Both of them will work in the new DSL. The idea is that there should be no
>>> restrictions on the combinations one can do.
>>> 
>>> Coming to what does the early and the late trigger do, the early trigger
>>> will
>>> be responsible for specifying when the trigger should fire in the period
>>> between
>>> the beginning of the window and the time when the watermark passes the end
>>> of the window. The late trigger takes over after the watermark passes the
>>> end of
>>> the window, and specifies when the trigger should fire in the period
>>> between the
>>> endOfWindow and endOfWindow + allowedLateness.
>>> 
>>> So in the case of the:
>>>All(EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
>>>.withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger),
>>> EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
>>>.withLateTrigger(lateFiringTrigger))
>>> 
>>> The trigger will only fire at the end of the window, as this is the only
>>> time both
>>> triggers will say FIRE.
>>> 
>>> Although the above will work, the example that you gave is a nice one as
>>> it
>>> degenerates to an:
>>> 
>>>EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
>>> 
>>> Detecting this and giving the simplest trigger for the job can lead to
>>> further
>>> optimizations, as it can for example reduce the amount of state the
>>> trigger has to keep.
>>> 
>>> That would actually be a very nice addition to have as in some cases it
>>> can lead
>>> to performance improvements.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the feedback!
>>> 
>>> Kostas
>>> 
 On Aug 17, 2016, at 4:36 AM, Jark Wu 
>>> wrote:
 
 Hi,
 
 It’s a cool design, I really like it !  I have two questions here.
 
 The first is whether do we have the complex composite triggers, i.e.
>>> nested All and Any. Such as :
 
 Any(
  All(trigger1, trigger2),
  Any(trigger3, trigger4)
 )
 
 Can the above code work?
 
 Another question is ： In composite triggers, what’s the behavior of
>>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Aljoscha Krettek]

Regarding Repeat.forever() and the default being to not repeat. The simple
reason is that Beam (née Google Dataflow) provides basically the same thing
with their trigger DSL and that their triggers behave like this. I think it
would not be beneficial to have the same feature in two systems in that
space where the behavior is the opposite. That would make it confusing for
users.

On the implementation side, I think in most cases you need to have a way of
telling when triggers are finished or not anyways. There could be a central
component in the TriggerRunner that has a finished bit for every trigger in
the tree. In most cases this would be a simple byte. Triggers could set and
query this finished bit. In some cases, where you know that triggers can
never finish you could have a dummy implementation of the finished set that
does not store any state and always returns false when queried.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 11:52 Aljoscha Krettek  wrote:

> Kostas already nicely explained this!
>
> I just want to give some theoretical background. I see the underlying idea
> of triggers similar to predicates, i.e.
> "EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow().withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger)"
> translates to a predicate "(E and ET) or WT" (where E is a predicate that
> is true when we are in early phase, ET is the early trigger and WT is the
> watermark trigger). The other trigger translates to "(!E and LT) or WT",
> i.e. it triggers if we're not early and LT is true or if the watermark
> trigger is true. If we combine the two we get:
>
> ((E and ET) or WT) and ((!E and LT) or WT)
>
> now we can eliminate the two parts with E and !E because they can never be
> true and are in an "or":
>
> WT and WT
>
> which yield just "WT".
>
> Hope that makes sense to you.
>
> Cheers,
> Aljoscha
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 10:47 Kostas Kloudas 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Jark Wu,
>>
>> Both of them will work in the new DSL. The idea is that there should be no
>> restrictions on the combinations one can do.
>>
>> Coming to what does the early and the late trigger do, the early trigger
>> will
>> be responsible for specifying when the trigger should fire in the period
>> between
>> the beginning of the window and the time when the watermark passes the end
>> of the window. The late trigger takes over after the watermark passes the
>> end of
>> the window, and specifies when the trigger should fire in the period
>> between the
>> endOfWindow and endOfWindow + allowedLateness.
>>
>> So in the case of the:
>> All(EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
>> .withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger),
>>  EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
>> .withLateTrigger(lateFiringTrigger))
>>
>> The trigger will only fire at the end of the window, as this is the only
>> time both
>> triggers will say FIRE.
>>
>> Although the above will work, the example that you gave is a nice one as
>> it
>> degenerates to an:
>>
>> EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
>>
>> Detecting this and giving the simplest trigger for the job can lead to
>> further
>> optimizations, as it can for example reduce the amount of state the
>> trigger has to keep.
>>
>> That would actually be a very nice addition to have as in some cases it
>> can lead
>> to performance improvements.
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback!
>>
>> Kostas
>>
>> > On Aug 17, 2016, at 4:36 AM, Jark Wu 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > It’s a cool design, I really like it !  I have two questions here.
>> >
>> > The first is whether do we have the complex composite triggers, i.e.
>> nested All and Any. Such as :
>> >
>> > Any(
>> >   All(trigger1, trigger2),
>> >   Any(trigger3, trigger4)
>> > )
>> >
>> > Can the above code work?
>> >
>> > Another question is ： In composite triggers, what’s the behavior of
>> withEarlyTrigger and withLateTrigger ? For example,
>> >
>> > All(EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
>> > .withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger),
>> > EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
>> > .withLateTrigger(lateFiringTrigger))
>> >
>> > Is it legal? Will the earlyFiringTrigger and lateFiringTrigger both
>> work  ?
>> >
>> >
>> > - Jark Wu
>> >
>> >> 在 2016年8月17日，上午12:24，Kostas Kloudas  写道：
>> >>
>> >> Hi Aljoscha,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the feedback!
>> >>
>> >> It is a nice feature to have. The reason it is not included in the FLIP
>> >> is that I have not seen somebody asking for something similar in the
>> >> mailing list.
>> >>
>> >> A point that I have to add is that it seems (from the user ML) that
>> >> most of the times users expect the “Repeated.forever” behavior to
>> >> be the default.
>> >>
>> >> Given this, I would say that we should make this the default and
>> >> add something like “Repeat.Once” option which will just let the trigger
>> >> fire 

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Aljoscha Krettek]

Kostas already nicely explained this!

I just want to give some theoretical background. I see the underlying idea
of triggers similar to predicates, i.e.
"EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow().withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger)"
translates to a predicate "(E and ET) or WT" (where E is a predicate that
is true when we are in early phase, ET is the early trigger and WT is the
watermark trigger). The other trigger translates to "(!E and LT) or WT",
i.e. it triggers if we're not early and LT is true or if the watermark
trigger is true. If we combine the two we get:

((E and ET) or WT) and ((!E and LT) or WT)

now we can eliminate the two parts with E and !E because they can never be
true and are in an "or":

WT and WT

which yield just "WT".

Hope that makes sense to you.

Cheers,
Aljoscha


On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 10:47 Kostas Kloudas 
wrote:

> Hello Jark Wu,
>
> Both of them will work in the new DSL. The idea is that there should be no
> restrictions on the combinations one can do.
>
> Coming to what does the early and the late trigger do, the early trigger
> will
> be responsible for specifying when the trigger should fire in the period
> between
> the beginning of the window and the time when the watermark passes the end
> of the window. The late trigger takes over after the watermark passes the
> end of
> the window, and specifies when the trigger should fire in the period
> between the
> endOfWindow and endOfWindow + allowedLateness.
>
> So in the case of the:
> All(EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
> .withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger),
>  EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
> .withLateTrigger(lateFiringTrigger))
>
> The trigger will only fire at the end of the window, as this is the only
> time both
> triggers will say FIRE.
>
> Although the above will work, the example that you gave is a nice one as it
> degenerates to an:
>
> EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
>
> Detecting this and giving the simplest trigger for the job can lead to
> further
> optimizations, as it can for example reduce the amount of state the
> trigger has to keep.
>
> That would actually be a very nice addition to have as in some cases it
> can lead
> to performance improvements.
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
> Kostas
>
> > On Aug 17, 2016, at 4:36 AM, Jark Wu  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It’s a cool design, I really like it !  I have two questions here.
> >
> > The first is whether do we have the complex composite triggers, i.e.
> nested All and Any. Such as :
> >
> > Any(
> >   All(trigger1, trigger2),
> >   Any(trigger3, trigger4)
> > )
> >
> > Can the above code work?
> >
> > Another question is ： In composite triggers, what’s the behavior of
> withEarlyTrigger and withLateTrigger ? For example,
> >
> > All(EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
> > .withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger),
> > EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
> > .withLateTrigger(lateFiringTrigger))
> >
> > Is it legal? Will the earlyFiringTrigger and lateFiringTrigger both
> work  ?
> >
> >
> > - Jark Wu
> >
> >> 在 2016年8月17日，上午12:24，Kostas Kloudas  写道：
> >>
> >> Hi Aljoscha,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the feedback!
> >>
> >> It is a nice feature to have. The reason it is not included in the FLIP
> >> is that I have not seen somebody asking for something similar in the
> >> mailing list.
> >>
> >> A point that I have to add is that it seems (from the user ML) that
> >> most of the times users expect the “Repeated.forever” behavior to
> >> be the default.
> >>
> >> Given this, I would say that we should make this the default and
> >> add something like “Repeat.Once” option which will just let the trigger
> >> fire once, e.g. the first time the counter reaches 5 in your example,
> >> and then stop.
> >>
> >> In other case, the trigger specification may become too verbose,
> >> as the user will have to write the “Repeat.forever” for all child
> triggers.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Kostas
> >>
> >>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Aljoscha Krettek 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Ah, I just read the document again and noticed that it might be good to
> >>> differentiate between repeatable triggers and non-repeating triggers.
> I'm
> >>> proposing to make most triggers non-repeating with the addition of a
> >>> trigger that makes other triggers repeatable.
> >>>
> >>> Example Non-Repeating:
> >>> EventTimeTrigger.pastEndOfWindow()
> >>> .withEarlyFiring(CountTrigger.of(5))
> >>>
> >>> this gives me an early firing once I got 5 elements and then an on-time
> >>> firing once the watermark passes the end of the window.
> >>>
> >>> Example with Repeating:
> >>> EventTimeTrigger.pastEndOfWindow()
> >>> .withEarlyFiring(Repeated.forever(CountTrigger.of(5)))
> >>>
> >>> this gives me early firings whenever I 

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Kostas Kloudas]

Hello Jark Wu,

Both of them will work in the new DSL. The idea is that there should be no 
restrictions on the combinations one can do.

Coming to what does the early and the late trigger do, the early trigger will
be responsible for specifying when the trigger should fire in the period 
between 
the beginning of the window and the time when the watermark passes the end 
of the window. The late trigger takes over after the watermark passes the end 
of 
the window, and specifies when the trigger should fire in the period between 
the 
endOfWindow and endOfWindow + allowedLateness.

So in the case of the:
All(EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
.withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger),
 EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
.withLateTrigger(lateFiringTrigger))

The trigger will only fire at the end of the window, as this is the only time 
both 
triggers will say FIRE.

Although the above will work, the example that you gave is a nice one as it 
degenerates to an:

EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()

Detecting this and giving the simplest trigger for the job can lead to further 
optimizations, as it can for example reduce the amount of state the trigger has 
to keep.

That would actually be a very nice addition to have as in some cases it can 
lead 
to performance improvements.

Thanks for the feedback!

Kostas

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 4:36 AM, Jark Wu  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It’s a cool design, I really like it !  I have two questions here. 
> 
> The first is whether do we have the complex composite triggers, i.e. nested 
> All and Any. Such as :
> 
> Any( 
>   All(trigger1, trigger2), 
>   Any(trigger3, trigger4)
> )
> 
> Can the above code work?
> 
> Another question is ： In composite triggers, what’s the behavior of 
> withEarlyTrigger and withLateTrigger ? For example, 
> 
> All(EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
> .withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger),
> EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
> .withLateTrigger(lateFiringTrigger))
> 
> Is it legal? Will the earlyFiringTrigger and lateFiringTrigger both work  ? 
> 
> 
> - Jark Wu 
> 
>> 在 2016年8月17日，上午12:24，Kostas Kloudas  写道：
>> 
>> Hi Aljoscha,
>> 
>> Thanks for the feedback! 
>> 
>> It is a nice feature to have. The reason it is not included in the FLIP
>> is that I have not seen somebody asking for something similar in the 
>> mailing list.
>> 
>> A point that I have to add is that it seems (from the user ML) that 
>> most of the times users expect the “Repeated.forever” behavior to 
>> be the default. 
>> 
>> Given this, I would say that we should make this the default and 
>> add something like “Repeat.Once” option which will just let the trigger
>> fire once, e.g. the first time the counter reaches 5 in your example,
>> and then stop.
>> 
>> In other case, the trigger specification may become too verbose,
>> as the user will have to write the “Repeat.forever” for all child triggers. 
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> Kostas
>> 
>>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Aljoscha Krettek  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ah, I just read the document again and noticed that it might be good to
>>> differentiate between repeatable triggers and non-repeating triggers. I'm
>>> proposing to make most triggers non-repeating with the addition of a
>>> trigger that makes other triggers repeatable.
>>> 
>>> Example Non-Repeating:
>>> EventTimeTrigger.pastEndOfWindow()
>>> .withEarlyFiring(CountTrigger.of(5))
>>> 
>>> this gives me an early firing once I got 5 elements and then an on-time
>>> firing once the watermark passes the end of the window.
>>> 
>>> Example with Repeating:
>>> EventTimeTrigger.pastEndOfWindow()
>>> .withEarlyFiring(Repeated.forever(CountTrigger.of(5)))
>>> 
>>> this gives me early firings whenever I see 5 new elements plus the
>>> watermark firing.
>>> 
>>> What do you think?
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 at 15:31 Kostas Kloudas 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Thanks Till!
 
 Kostas
 
> On Aug 16, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Till Rohrmann  wrote:
> 
> Cool design doc Klou. It's well described with a lot of details. I like
 it
> a lot :-) +1 for implementing the trigger DSL.
> 
> Cheers,
> Till
> 
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Kostas Kloudas <
 k.klou...@data-artisans.com
>> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the feedback Ufuk!
>> I will do that.
>> 
>>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hey Kostas! Thanks for sharing the documents. I think it makes sense
>>> to merge the two documents by moving the Google doc contents to the
>>> Wiki. I think they form one unit.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Kostas Kloudas
>>>  wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Jark Wu]

Hi,

It’s a cool design, I really like it !  I have two questions here. 

The first is whether do we have the complex composite triggers, i.e. nested All 
and Any. Such as :

Any( 
   All(trigger1, trigger2), 
   Any(trigger3, trigger4)
)

Can the above code work?

Another question is ： In composite triggers, what’s the behavior of 
withEarlyTrigger and withLateTrigger ? For example, 

All(EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
 .withEarlyTrigger(earlyFiringTrigger),
 EventTimeTrigger.afterEndOfWindow()
 .withLateTrigger(lateFiringTrigger))

Is it legal? Will the earlyFiringTrigger and lateFiringTrigger both work  ? 


- Jark Wu 

> 在 2016年8月17日，上午12:24，Kostas Kloudas  写道：
> 
> Hi Aljoscha,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback! 
> 
> It is a nice feature to have. The reason it is not included in the FLIP
> is that I have not seen somebody asking for something similar in the 
> mailing list.
> 
> A point that I have to add is that it seems (from the user ML) that 
> most of the times users expect the “Repeated.forever” behavior to 
> be the default. 
> 
> Given this, I would say that we should make this the default and 
> add something like “Repeat.Once” option which will just let the trigger
> fire once, e.g. the first time the counter reaches 5 in your example,
> and then stop.
> 
> In other case, the trigger specification may become too verbose,
> as the user will have to write the “Repeat.forever” for all child triggers. 
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Kostas
> 
>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Aljoscha Krettek  wrote:
>> 
>> Ah, I just read the document again and noticed that it might be good to
>> differentiate between repeatable triggers and non-repeating triggers. I'm
>> proposing to make most triggers non-repeating with the addition of a
>> trigger that makes other triggers repeatable.
>> 
>> Example Non-Repeating:
>> EventTimeTrigger.pastEndOfWindow()
>> .withEarlyFiring(CountTrigger.of(5))
>> 
>> this gives me an early firing once I got 5 elements and then an on-time
>> firing once the watermark passes the end of the window.
>> 
>> Example with Repeating:
>> EventTimeTrigger.pastEndOfWindow()
>> .withEarlyFiring(Repeated.forever(CountTrigger.of(5)))
>> 
>> this gives me early firings whenever I see 5 new elements plus the
>> watermark firing.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 at 15:31 Kostas Kloudas 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Till!
>>> 
>>> Kostas
>>> 
 On Aug 16, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Till Rohrmann  wrote:
 
 Cool design doc Klou. It's well described with a lot of details. I like
>>> it
 a lot :-) +1 for implementing the trigger DSL.
 
 Cheers,
 Till
 
 On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Kostas Kloudas <
>>> k.klou...@data-artisans.com
> wrote:
 
> Thanks for the feedback Ufuk!
> I will do that.
> 
>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
>> 
>> Hey Kostas! Thanks for sharing the documents. I think it makes sense
>> to merge the two documents by moving the Google doc contents to the
>> Wiki. I think they form one unit.
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Kostas Kloudas
>>  wrote:
>>> Hi all!
>>> 
>>> I've created a FLIP for the trigger DSL. This is the triggers
>>> that we want Apache Flink to support out-of-the-box. This proposal
>>> builds on various discussions on the mailing list and aims at
>>> serving as a base for further ones.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-9%3A+Trigger+DSL
> 
>>> 
>>> FLIP-9 provides a description of the triggers Flink already offers,
>>> the new that we think should be added, how the APIs could look like,
>>> some discussion on the implementation implications and some ideas
>>> on how to implement them.
>>> 
>>> There is also a shared document giving a bit more insight on the
> implementation
>>> implications. Feel free to read but please keep the discussion in the
> mailing list.
>>> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/a/data-artisans.com/document/d/
> 1vESGQ913oR-DnE1jmFiihvLBU6_UDo-1DRgoHtSgu30/edit?usp=sharing <
> https://docs.google.com/a/data-artisans.com/document/d/
> 1vESGQ913oR-DnE1jmFiihvLBU6_UDo-1DRgoHtSgu30/edit?usp=sharing>
>>> 
>>> I would like to start working on an the implementation next week.
>>> 
>>> Let the discussion begin!
>>> 
>>> Kostas
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Kostas Kloudas]

Hi Aljoscha,

Thanks for the feedback! 

It is a nice feature to have. The reason it is not included in the FLIP
is that I have not seen somebody asking for something similar in the 
mailing list.

A point that I have to add is that it seems (from the user ML) that 
most of the times users expect the “Repeated.forever” behavior to 
be the default. 

Given this, I would say that we should make this the default and 
add something like “Repeat.Once” option which will just let the trigger
fire once, e.g. the first time the counter reaches 5 in your example,
and then stop.

In other case, the trigger specification may become too verbose,
as the user will have to write the “Repeat.forever” for all child triggers. 

What do you think?

Kostas

> On Aug 16, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Aljoscha Krettek  wrote:
> 
> Ah, I just read the document again and noticed that it might be good to
> differentiate between repeatable triggers and non-repeating triggers. I'm
> proposing to make most triggers non-repeating with the addition of a
> trigger that makes other triggers repeatable.
> 
> Example Non-Repeating:
> EventTimeTrigger.pastEndOfWindow()
>  .withEarlyFiring(CountTrigger.of(5))
> 
> this gives me an early firing once I got 5 elements and then an on-time
> firing once the watermark passes the end of the window.
> 
> Example with Repeating:
> EventTimeTrigger.pastEndOfWindow()
>  .withEarlyFiring(Repeated.forever(CountTrigger.of(5)))
> 
> this gives me early firings whenever I see 5 new elements plus the
> watermark firing.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 at 15:31 Kostas Kloudas 
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Till!
>> 
>> Kostas
>> 
>>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Till Rohrmann  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Cool design doc Klou. It's well described with a lot of details. I like
>> it
>>> a lot :-) +1 for implementing the trigger DSL.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Till
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Kostas Kloudas <
>> k.klou...@data-artisans.com
 wrote:
>>> 
 Thanks for the feedback Ufuk!
 I will do that.
 
> On Aug 16, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
> 
> Hey Kostas! Thanks for sharing the documents. I think it makes sense
> to merge the two documents by moving the Google doc contents to the
> Wiki. I think they form one unit.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Kostas Kloudas
>  wrote:
>> Hi all!
>> 
>> I've created a FLIP for the trigger DSL. This is the triggers
>> that we want Apache Flink to support out-of-the-box. This proposal
>> builds on various discussions on the mailing list and aims at
>> serving as a base for further ones.
>> 
>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-9%3A+Trigger+DSL
 
>> 
>> FLIP-9 provides a description of the triggers Flink already offers,
>> the new that we think should be added, how the APIs could look like,
>> some discussion on the implementation implications and some ideas
>> on how to implement them.
>> 
>> There is also a shared document giving a bit more insight on the
 implementation
>> implications. Feel free to read but please keep the discussion in the
 mailing list.
>> 
>> https://docs.google.com/a/data-artisans.com/document/d/
 1vESGQ913oR-DnE1jmFiihvLBU6_UDo-1DRgoHtSgu30/edit?usp=sharing <
 https://docs.google.com/a/data-artisans.com/document/d/
 1vESGQ913oR-DnE1jmFiihvLBU6_UDo-1DRgoHtSgu30/edit?usp=sharing>
>> 
>> I would like to start working on an the implementation next week.
>> 
>> Let the discussion begin!
>> 
>> Kostas
>> 
>> 
 
 
>> 
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Aljoscha Krettek]

Ah, I just read the document again and noticed that it might be good to
differentiate between repeatable triggers and non-repeating triggers. I'm
proposing to make most triggers non-repeating with the addition of a
trigger that makes other triggers repeatable.

Example Non-Repeating:
EventTimeTrigger.pastEndOfWindow()
  .withEarlyFiring(CountTrigger.of(5))

this gives me an early firing once I got 5 elements and then an on-time
firing once the watermark passes the end of the window.

Example with Repeating:
EventTimeTrigger.pastEndOfWindow()
  .withEarlyFiring(Repeated.forever(CountTrigger.of(5)))

this gives me early firings whenever I see 5 new elements plus the
watermark firing.

What do you think?

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 at 15:31 Kostas Kloudas 
wrote:

> Thanks Till!
>
> Kostas
>
> > On Aug 16, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Till Rohrmann  wrote:
> >
> > Cool design doc Klou. It's well described with a lot of details. I like
> it
> > a lot :-) +1 for implementing the trigger DSL.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Till
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Kostas Kloudas <
> k.klou...@data-artisans.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the feedback Ufuk!
> >> I will do that.
> >>
> >>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hey Kostas! Thanks for sharing the documents. I think it makes sense
> >>> to merge the two documents by moving the Google doc contents to the
> >>> Wiki. I think they form one unit.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Kostas Kloudas
> >>>  wrote:
>  Hi all!
> 
>  I've created a FLIP for the trigger DSL. This is the triggers
>  that we want Apache Flink to support out-of-the-box. This proposal
>  builds on various discussions on the mailing list and aims at
>  serving as a base for further ones.
> 
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-9%3A+Trigger+DSL
> >> 
> 
>  FLIP-9 provides a description of the triggers Flink already offers,
>  the new that we think should be added, how the APIs could look like,
>  some discussion on the implementation implications and some ideas
>  on how to implement them.
> 
>  There is also a shared document giving a bit more insight on the
> >> implementation
>  implications. Feel free to read but please keep the discussion in the
> >> mailing list.
> 
>  https://docs.google.com/a/data-artisans.com/document/d/
> >> 1vESGQ913oR-DnE1jmFiihvLBU6_UDo-1DRgoHtSgu30/edit?usp=sharing <
> >> https://docs.google.com/a/data-artisans.com/document/d/
> >> 1vESGQ913oR-DnE1jmFiihvLBU6_UDo-1DRgoHtSgu30/edit?usp=sharing>
> 
>  I would like to start working on an the implementation next week.
> 
>  Let the discussion begin!
> 
>  Kostas
> 
> 
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Kostas Kloudas]

Thanks Till!

Kostas

> On Aug 16, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Till Rohrmann  wrote:
> 
> Cool design doc Klou. It's well described with a lot of details. I like it
> a lot :-) +1 for implementing the trigger DSL.
> 
> Cheers,
> Till
> 
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Kostas Kloudas > wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the feedback Ufuk!
>> I will do that.
>> 
>>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hey Kostas! Thanks for sharing the documents. I think it makes sense
>>> to merge the two documents by moving the Google doc contents to the
>>> Wiki. I think they form one unit.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Kostas Kloudas
>>>  wrote:
 Hi all!
 
 I've created a FLIP for the trigger DSL. This is the triggers
 that we want Apache Flink to support out-of-the-box. This proposal
 builds on various discussions on the mailing list and aims at
 serving as a base for further ones.
 
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-9%3A+Trigger+DSL
>> 
 
 FLIP-9 provides a description of the triggers Flink already offers,
 the new that we think should be added, how the APIs could look like,
 some discussion on the implementation implications and some ideas
 on how to implement them.
 
 There is also a shared document giving a bit more insight on the
>> implementation
 implications. Feel free to read but please keep the discussion in the
>> mailing list.
 
 https://docs.google.com/a/data-artisans.com/document/d/
>> 1vESGQ913oR-DnE1jmFiihvLBU6_UDo-1DRgoHtSgu30/edit?usp=sharing <
>> https://docs.google.com/a/data-artisans.com/document/d/
>> 1vESGQ913oR-DnE1jmFiihvLBU6_UDo-1DRgoHtSgu30/edit?usp=sharing>
 
 I would like to start working on an the implementation next week.
 
 Let the discussion begin!
 
 Kostas
 
 
>> 
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Till Rohrmann]

Cool design doc Klou. It's well described with a lot of details. I like it
a lot :-) +1 for implementing the trigger DSL.

Cheers,
Till

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Kostas Kloudas  wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback Ufuk!
> I will do that.
>
> > On Aug 16, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
> >
> > Hey Kostas! Thanks for sharing the documents. I think it makes sense
> > to merge the two documents by moving the Google doc contents to the
> > Wiki. I think they form one unit.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Kostas Kloudas
> >  wrote:
> >> Hi all!
> >>
> >> I've created a FLIP for the trigger DSL. This is the triggers
> >> that we want Apache Flink to support out-of-the-box. This proposal
> >> builds on various discussions on the mailing list and aims at
> >> serving as a base for further ones.
> >>
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-9%3A+Trigger+DSL
> 
> >>
> >> FLIP-9 provides a description of the triggers Flink already offers,
> >> the new that we think should be added, how the APIs could look like,
> >> some discussion on the implementation implications and some ideas
> >> on how to implement them.
> >>
> >> There is also a shared document giving a bit more insight on the
> implementation
> >> implications. Feel free to read but please keep the discussion in the
> mailing list.
> >>
> >> https://docs.google.com/a/data-artisans.com/document/d/
> 1vESGQ913oR-DnE1jmFiihvLBU6_UDo-1DRgoHtSgu30/edit?usp=sharing <
> https://docs.google.com/a/data-artisans.com/document/d/
> 1vESGQ913oR-DnE1jmFiihvLBU6_UDo-1DRgoHtSgu30/edit?usp=sharing>
> >>
> >> I would like to start working on an the implementation next week.
> >>
> >> Let the discussion begin!
> >>
> >> Kostas
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Kostas Kloudas]

Thanks for the feedback Ufuk!
I will do that.

> On Aug 16, 2016, at 1:41 PM, Ufuk Celebi  wrote:
> 
> Hey Kostas! Thanks for sharing the documents. I think it makes sense
> to merge the two documents by moving the Google doc contents to the
> Wiki. I think they form one unit.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Kostas Kloudas
>  wrote:
>> Hi all!
>> 
>> I've created a FLIP for the trigger DSL. This is the triggers
>> that we want Apache Flink to support out-of-the-box. This proposal
>> builds on various discussions on the mailing list and aims at
>> serving as a base for further ones.
>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-9%3A+Trigger+DSL 
>> 
>> 
>> FLIP-9 provides a description of the triggers Flink already offers,
>> the new that we think should be added, how the APIs could look like,
>> some discussion on the implementation implications and some ideas
>> on how to implement them.
>> 
>> There is also a shared document giving a bit more insight on the 
>> implementation
>> implications. Feel free to read but please keep the discussion in the 
>> mailing list.
>> 
>> https://docs.google.com/a/data-artisans.com/document/d/1vESGQ913oR-DnE1jmFiihvLBU6_UDo-1DRgoHtSgu30/edit?usp=sharing
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> I would like to start working on an the implementation next week.
>> 
>> Let the discussion begin!
>> 
>> Kostas
>> 
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] FLIP-9: Trigger DSL

[Ufuk Celebi]

Hey Kostas! Thanks for sharing the documents. I think it makes sense
to merge the two documents by moving the Google doc contents to the
Wiki. I think they form one unit.

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Kostas Kloudas
 wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I've created a FLIP for the trigger DSL. This is the triggers
> that we want Apache Flink to support out-of-the-box. This proposal
> builds on various discussions on the mailing list and aims at
> serving as a base for further ones.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-9%3A+Trigger+DSL 
> 
>
> FLIP-9 provides a description of the triggers Flink already offers,
> the new that we think should be added, how the APIs could look like,
> some discussion on the implementation implications and some ideas
> on how to implement them.
>
> There is also a shared document giving a bit more insight on the 
> implementation
> implications. Feel free to read but please keep the discussion in the mailing 
> list.
>
> https://docs.google.com/a/data-artisans.com/document/d/1vESGQ913oR-DnE1jmFiihvLBU6_UDo-1DRgoHtSgu30/edit?usp=sharing
>  
> 
>
> I would like to start working on an the implementation next week.
>
> Let the discussion begin!
>
> Kostas
>
>