RichFunctions and Streaming

[Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com>]

Hey,

I see that you have changed and moved around a lot of things regarding the
functions for the API. Also these Rich functions were introduced.

Since it pretty much broke our whole API and I have to rewrite a lot of
things, do you think I should use the RichFunctions instead of the standard
ones? Or are you going to support both in the API?

Regards,
Gyula

Re: RichFunctions and Streaming

[Kostas Tzoumas <ko...@tu-berlin.de>]

Hi Gyula,

Sorry for not giving you a heads up for this. We changed the API to work on
the interfaces that contain one abstract method rather than the rich
functions in order to support Java 8 lambdas down the road (this is not
done yet). We did this now in order to bundle as many breaking changes as
possible in the 0.6 release.

The API will support both rich and standard functions. In order to use a
standard function, you need to implement the FooFunction interface of the
common API (e.g., MapFunction) , in order to use a rich function you need
to extend the RichFooFunction class. The examples have also been
refactored.

You can use either, depending on whether you need the extra functionality
provided by the rich functions. I think that it would be a good idea to
also allow the user of the streaming API to use the simple functions to the
degree that this is possible. Take a look also at the "Functions" paragraph
of this PR: https://github.com/apache/incubator-flink/pull/87

Kostas




On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay, it didnt take me too much time to replace the regular functions with
> the Rich versions and everything works again. I still need to do some
> cleanups before I can push it, but I will finnish it today and that should
> also fix the pull request.
>
> Also +1 for the RichFunctions, we were missing the open() and close() calls
> from the API anyways :)
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > I see that you have changed and moved around a lot of things regarding
> the
> > functions for the API. Also these Rich functions were introduced.
> >
> > Since it pretty much broke our whole API and I have to rewrite a lot of
> > things, do you think I should use the RichFunctions instead of the
> standard
> > ones? Or are you going to support both in the API?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gyula
> >
>

Re: RichFunctions and Streaming

[Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com>]

Okay, it didnt take me too much time to replace the regular functions with
the Rich versions and everything works again. I still need to do some
cleanups before I can push it, but I will finnish it today and that should
also fix the pull request.

Also +1 for the RichFunctions, we were missing the open() and close() calls
from the API anyways :)


On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Gyula Fóra <gy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> I see that you have changed and moved around a lot of things regarding the
> functions for the API. Also these Rich functions were introduced.
>
> Since it pretty much broke our whole API and I have to rewrite a lot of
> things, do you think I should use the RichFunctions instead of the standard
> ones? Or are you going to support both in the API?
>
> Regards,
> Gyula
>