I vote we stay with Module -- there are bigger fish to fry. The word means "modular unit" and is a valid candidate for use in any context where that meaning fits.
The word Operator itself is overloaded in numerous contexts, both in computing and in other fields. The word Class is a common one for OO languages and the fact that it is used by many languages should not be a deterrent to new languages also using it. Similarly for "plugin". Ram On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Pramod Immaneni <[email protected]> wrote: > While you are right about "Evolving" state and having the ability to change > it, I think we should pause and consider backwards compatibility when > changing a major component like this one. I guess one factor that works in > your favor is that even though we do have code in our own Malhar repo using > this, it has not been in an official release yet. > > While I think Module is probably not an appropriate name as it is commonly > used for other things, choosing a functional name like CompositeOperator > and not giving it a specific name is a step backward. > > Thanks > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 9:12 AM, David Yan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Pramod, > > > > The existing Module class is marked "InterfaceStability.Evolving" and > > therefore we don't guarantee backward compatibility. Also there are > > probably very very few users, if any, who use any class derived from the > > current Module because of the recent introduction of the concept. > > > > I think at this point if we decide to go forward with the change, > > deprecating "Module" for backward compatibility is an overkill. > > > > David > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Pramod Immaneni <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > I don't think we should rename Module to CompositeOperator as it will > > break > > > backwards compatibility. If this is something we want to go forward > with > > > then we should think about depreacting Module. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Tushar Gosavi <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > I have a pull request #313 opened for Module related work. I will do > > > > following changes to incorporate this suggestion. > > > > > > > > - Rename Module to CompositeOperator > > > > - Rename Vertex in DAG to GenerticOperator > > > > > > > > Do we also need to change the rest API to reflex the name change? The > > > only > > > > change required is in logicalPlan with includeModules parameter. It > > > > includes a "modules" field > > > > in the json. this field can be changed to "compositeOperators". Let > me > > > know > > > > your > > > > thought on this? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > -Tushar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Amol Kekre <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The packaging has been taken up by other names, module is now a > java > > > only > > > > > construct. > > > > > > > > > > Thks, > > > > > Amol > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Sandesh Hegde < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Earlier the vision was, module can contain widgets/UI along with > > the > > > > > > operators. So it made sense to have that name. > > > > > > If that is not the case then +1 for CompositeOperator > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 7:53 PM Amol Kekre <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thks > > > > > > > Amol > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Sasha Parfenov < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Everybody is already familiar with concept of an Operators in > > > Apex. > > > > > It > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > best to keep that terminology, and use CompositeOperator to > > > > indicate > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > related to Operators, rather than introduce a new concept of > > > > Modules. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will also have a significant impact on documentation, > > where > > > > word > > > > > > > > Operator can continue to serve interchangeably for Operator > or > > > > > > > > CompositeOperator, instead of always having to say "Operators > > and > > > > > > > Modules". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Sasha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:10 PM, David Yan < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the javadoc of com.datatorrent.api.Module in Apex > Core: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A Module is a component which can be added to the DAG > similar > > > to > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > operator, using addModule API. The module should implement > > > > > > populateDAG > > > > > > > > > method, which will be called by the platform, and DAG > > populated > > > > by > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > module will be replaced in place of the module. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the word "module" is very overloaded, and it is > too > > > > > abstract > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > general to describe the concept. The same term is also used > > by > > > > > maven > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > example. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the interface is marked "Evolving" and because of the > > > > recent > > > > > > > > > introduction, there are very few users using it if any, I > > would > > > > > like > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > propose that we change the name "Module" to > > > "CompositeOperator". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please share your opinion. Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
