+1 On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:06 AM JingsongLee <lzljs3620...@aliyun.com> wrote:
> strong +1 > best, > JingsongLee------------------------------------------------------------------From:Tang > Jijun(上海_技术部_数据平台_唐觊隽) <tangji...@yhd.com>Time:2017 Apr 12 (Wed) > 10:39To:dev@beam.apache.org <dev@beam.apache.org>Subject:答复: Renaming > SideOutput > +1 more clearer > > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Ankur Chauhan [mailto:an...@malloc64.com] > 发送时间: 2017年4月12日 10:36 > 收件人: dev@beam.apache.org > 主题: Re: Renaming SideOutput > > > +1 this is pretty much the topmost things that I found odd when starting with > the beam model. It would definitely be more intuitive to have a consistent > name. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 11, 2017, at 18:29, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > +1 > > > >> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017, at 02:34, Thomas Groh wrote: > >> I think that's a good idea. I would call the outputs of a ParDo the > >> "Main Output" and "Additional Outputs" - it seems like an easy way to > >> make it clear that there's one output that is always expected, and > >> there may be more. > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Robert Bradshaw < > >> rober...@google.com.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> We should do some renaming in Python too. Right now we have > >>> SideOutputValue which I'd propose naming TaggedOutput or something > >>> like that. > >>> > >>> Should the docs change too? > >>> https://beam.apache.org/documentation/programming-guide/#transforms- > >>> sideio > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Kenneth Knowles > >>> <k...@google.com.invalid> > >>> wrote: > >>>> +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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> >
