Github user aljoscha commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#issuecomment-185132200
Manually merged
---
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
Github user aljoscha closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513
---
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
Github user StephanEwen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#issuecomment-184875475
Looks good to me, +1 to merge this
---
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
Github user aljoscha commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#issuecomment-184715239
@rmetzger @StephanEwen Do you still have objections? I think this should go
in ASAP.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user aljoscha commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#issuecomment-184196790
I rebased on top of current master.
Btw, still still has the issue that the time characteristic only applies to
window operations that are created after
Github user aljoscha commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#issuecomment-183326898
Any more comments? Ideas? I think we should merge this soon because it
should go into the 1.0 release.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this
Github user aljoscha commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#issuecomment-181777122
You're right, I'm changing it. But it was also me who didn't notice when we
put it in initially :sweat_smile:
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to
Github user aljoscha commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#issuecomment-181810307
I rebased it to master and updated.
---
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
Github user StephanEwen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#issuecomment-181776065
For new classes, it makes sense. Was a mistake on my end to name them like
this in the first place.
But users that adopted this draw in my experience more
Github user rmetzger commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#discussion_r52185124
--- Diff:
flink-streaming-java/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/api/datastream/KeyedStream.java
---
@@ -163,7 +166,11 @@ public
Github user rmetzger commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#discussion_r52184878
--- Diff:
flink-streaming-java/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/api/TimeCharacteristic.java
---
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
* because the contents
Github user aljoscha commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#discussion_r52188674
--- Diff:
flink-streaming-java/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/api/datastream/KeyedStream.java
---
@@ -163,7 +166,11 @@ public
Github user StephanEwen commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#issuecomment-181511999
Is the switch from `ProcessingTime` to `PROCESSING_TIME` actually necessary?
Breaks yet one more thing for users just because of a matter of taste.
There
Github user aljoscha commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#issuecomment-181557496
IMO, it is not a question of taste but a question of trying to make the
code base adhere to Java coding standards.
I can roll back that change if we want this,
Github user rmetzger commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#issuecomment-172533529
I think the documentation hasn't been adopted to the changes.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as
Github user aljoscha commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#issuecomment-172567227
Right as always. I'm changing the docs now.
---
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
Github user aljoscha commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513#issuecomment-172574417
I adapted the documentation.
---
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
GitHub user aljoscha opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/1513
[FLINK-3243] Fix Interplay of TimeCharacteristic and Time Windows
This adds dedicated WindowAssigners for processing time and event time.
timeWindow() and timeWindowAll() respect the
18 matches
Mail list logo
