Thanks, Simon. We have already got a script to deal with classpath management for the parsers. We should be able to use it for this extension as well.
Yeah, I agree. It will be much easier to define functions on the fly and use them afterwards. It could be defined as Lambda or custom function. Regards, Ali On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 9:42 PM, Simon Elliston Ball < si...@simonellistonball.com> wrote: > https://github.com/apache/metron/tree/master/metron- > stellar/stellar-3rd-party-example gives good details on how to add a > stellar function. > > Stellar will pick up an annotated function on its class path, so to add > function there is no need to rebuild metron module, but you do need your > modules on the classpath, and, pending 777, to deal with things like class > path clash in your dependencies. > > Another idea worth discussion on the dev list is probably the notion of > defining stellar functions in stellar, which would be a much simpler > solution than custom java functions if you can already express you logic in > stellar. > > Simon > > > On 17 Jan 2018, at 10:37, Ali Nazemian <alinazem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > Yes, that is exactly what we are looking for. Is there any example > regarding adding a Stellar function in Java? Hopefully, we don't need to > rebuild the corresponding modules for this? > > Cheers, > Ali > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Simon Elliston Ball < > si...@simonellistonball.com> wrote: > >> At present you can certainly create custom stellar functions in Java. I’m >> guessing however that what you’re looking to do is create a kind of >> function that combines a number of stellar functions to avoid repetition, >> or to ensure consistency of certain parameters for example. Is that what >> you’re looking for? Maybe some sort of syntax to create a named stellar >> function similar to the way we create lambdas? >> >> Simon >> >> > On 17 Jan 2018, at 07:25, Ali Nazemian <alinazem...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Is there any way that we can define a function that can be used rather >> than duplicating a logic multiple times? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Ali >> >> > > > -- > A.Nazemian > > > -- A.Nazemian
