Hi Sanjay, Thanks for the feedback. My comments inline.
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Sanjay Pujare <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pramod > > Very useful document. Some questions/comments from me (sorry for any newbie > comments): > > - for the "Update an Existing Operator" section, are there any backward > compatibility constraints one should be aware of? > Yes the public and protected methods need to be preserved if they are not evolving operators. There is a semantic versioning check that happens during the build process, which ensures that these constraints are not violated. I will add these to the guidelines. > - it will be very useful to have each guideline illustrated by an actual > example (e.g. an example of combining 2 or more operators in a module, > initialization and teardown cases in > constructor/setup/beginWindow/endWindow/deactivate/teardown etc) > I think those would be best suited for the operator developer guide. The guidelines are meant to be used as a primer. > - should the guidelines say something about unit tests and how unit tests > should typically be written for operators (also include other kinds of > automated tests in-case "unit" testing is difficult) > Good point, will add a section on that. > - didn't find any references to WindowedOperator anywhere (but did find > WindowedStream). Will be good to have hyperlinks for all references > David would probably work on that as he is working on the implementation. The comment was forward looking. > - java 1.8/1.7 compatibility requirement? > 1.7 is a general requirement we have for the platform and should be mentioned elsewhere in the docs. Not sure if we need to mention it specifically in this document. > - with respect to "...only the data for the first input port..." , how is > "first" input port determined? > The first declared port, changed to mention that specifically. > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Pramod Immaneni <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I received some feedback. Any other comments before adding these > guidelines > > to the project. > > > > Thanks > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Pramod Immaneni <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > I wanted to create a set of guidelines that would help folks that want > to > > > contribute to Malhar. The goal is that by following these guidelines > the > > > contributions will be assured a certain level of quality as the > different > > > aspects to consider, common missteps and mistakes will be taken care of > > > which in turn would also make the review process smoother by reducing > the > > > number of review iterations before the contribution gets merged. I > tried > > to > > > capture as much information as I thought would help developers towards > > this > > > goal based on past experience and exposure, in a document. > > > > > > Please go through it and provide your feedback, it will be greatly > > > appreciated. I will go through your comments and incorporate any > > necessary > > > changes. After that I hope this document will become a living document > as > > > part of the contribution guidelines and evolve with the times. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WjbaIogVtMDQwbvxTlQxrFqUbK9D75bk98asW9e5OxA > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > >
