I agree with David that a Module is too abstract and within Apex doesn't describe the concept it is used for.
If we have consensus to change this name then Ilya's suggestion of calling it a "SubGraph" IMO is quite good. It is a short name and relevant to the concept. On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Munagala Ramanath <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
