+1 ditto about sideInput and sideOutput not actually being related On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Robert Bradshaw < rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote:
> +1, I think this is a lot clearer. > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Stephen Sisk <s...@google.com.invalid> > wrote: > > strong +1 for changing the name away from sideOutput - the fact that > > sideInput and sideOutput are not really related was definitely a source > of > > confusion for me when learning beam. > > > > S > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:56 PM Thomas Groh <tg...@google.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > >> Hey everyone: > >> > >> I'd like to rename DoFn.Context#sideOutput to #output (in the Java SDK). > >> > >> Having two methods, both named output, one which takes the "main output > >> type" and one that takes a tag to specify the type more clearly > >> communicates the actual behavior - sideOutput isn't a "special" way to > >> output, it's the same as output(T), just to a specified PCollection. > This > >> will help pipeline authors understand the actual behavior of outputting > to > >> a tag, and detangle it from "sideInput", which is a special way to > receive > >> input. Giving them the same name means that it's not even strange to > call > >> output and provide the main output type, which is what we want - it's a > >> more specific way to output, but does not have different restrictions or > >> capabilities. > >> > >> This is also a pretty small change within the SDK - it touches about 20 > >> files, and the changes are pretty automatic. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Thomas > >> >
