I mentioned this in the PR, I believe it is worth repeating here. It is important to keep the API consistent between Python and Java. It would help a lot, if changes are applied to both SDKs at the same time. If that is not possible, an easier alternative would be to file a JIRA issue so that the work could be tracked in the other SDK.
Ahmet On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Robert Bradshaw < [email protected]> wrote: > I see this was implemented. Do we have a policy/guideline for when a > name is "bad enough" to merit renaming (and keeping a duplicate, > deprecated member around for a year or more). > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Ben Chambers > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Exposing the CombineFn is necessary for use with composed combine or > >> combining value state. There may be other reasons we made this visible, > >> but > >> these continue to justify it. > > > > > > These are the CompareFns, not the CombineFns. > > > > It'd be nicer to use the Guava and/or Java8 natural ordering comparables, > > but they don't promise serializable. > > > > I agree the naming is unfortunate, but I don't know that it's bad enough > to > > introduce a new name and have duplication and deprecation in the API. It > > also goes deeper than this; Top.of(...) gives elements in *decreasing* > order > > while List.sort(...) gives elements in *increasing* order so using a > > comparator in one will always produce the opposite effect of using a > > comparator in the other. > > > >> > >> On Sun, May 14, 2017, 1:00 PM Reuven Lax <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > I believe the reason why this is called Top.largest, is that > originally > >> > it > >> > was simply the comparator used by Top.largest - i.e. and > implementation > >> > detail. At some point it was made public and used by other transforms > - > >> > maybe making an implementation detail a public class was the real > >> > mistake? > >> > > >> > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Davor Bonaci <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > I agree this is an unfortunate name. > >> > > > >> > > Tangential: can we rename APIs now that the first stable release is > >> > nearly > >> > > done? > >> > > Of course -- the "rename" can be done by introducing a new API, and > >> > > deprecating, but not removing, the old one. Then, once we decide to > >> > > move > >> > to > >> > > the next major release, the deprecated API can be removed. > >> > > > >> > > I think we should probably do the "rename" at some point, but I'd > >> > > leave > >> > the > >> > > final call to the wider consensus. > >> > > > >> > > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Wesley Tanaka > >> > > <[email protected] > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Using Top.Largest to sort a list of {2,1,3} produces {1,2,3}. > This > >> > > > matches the javadoc for the class, but seems counter-intuitive -- > >> > > > one > >> > > might > >> > > > expect that a Comparator called Largest would give largest items > >> > > > first. > >> > > > I'm wondering if renaming the classes to Natural / Reversed would > >> > better > >> > > > match their behavior? > >> > > > > >> > > > --- > >> > > > Wesley Tanaka > >> > > > https://wtanaka.com/ > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
