I think this is an unrealistic request -- Python and Java workflows are completely different, and Python developer documentation is especially abysmal.
(E.g., I had to have Robert sit with me to get the Python SDK to work at all on my developer machine, and even then I gave up and chmod-ed my machine-wide Python repos to be world-writable to get it to work.) On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Ahmet Altay <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
