Very cool! Thanks Charles!

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 9:56 AM Charles Chen <c...@google.com> wrote:

> An update: the reference DirectRunner implementation of (and common
> execution code for) the Python user state and timers API has been merged:
> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/6304
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 1:48 AM Charles Chen <c...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Another update: the reference DirectRunner implementation of the Python
>> user state and timers API is out for review:
>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/6304
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 2:18 PM Charles Chen <c...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> An update: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5691 has been merged.  I
>>> hope to send out a reference implementation in the DirectRunner soon.  On
>>> the roadmap after that is work on the relevant portability interfaces here
>>> so we can get this working on runners like Beam Python on Flink.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:00 AM Charles Chen <c...@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> An update on the implementation: I recently sent out the user-facing
>>>> pipeline construction part of the API implementation out for review:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/5691.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:26 PM Charles Chen <c...@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks everyone for contributing here.  We've reached rough consensus
>>>>> on the approach we should take with this API, and I've summarized this in
>>>>> the new "Community consensus" sections I added to the doc (
>>>>> https://s.apache.org/beam-python-user-state-and-timers).  I will
>>>>> begin initial implementation of this API soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:08 PM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice proposal; it's exciting to see this about to be added to the SDK
>>>>>> as it enables a set of more complex use cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also think that some of the content can later be repurposed as user
>>>>>> documentation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Charles Chen <c...@google.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks everyone for the detailed comments and discussions.  It looks
>>>>>>> like by now, we mostly agree with the requirements and overall direction
>>>>>>> needed for the API, though there is continuing discussion on specific
>>>>>>> details.  I want to highlight two new sections of the doc, which address
>>>>>>> some discussions that have come up:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    - *Existing state and transactionality*: this section addresses
>>>>>>>    how we will address an existing transactionality inconsistency in the
>>>>>>>    existing Java API.  (
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GadEkAmtbJQjmqiqfSzGw3b66TKerm8tyn6TK4blAys/edit#heading=h.ofyl9jspiz3b
>>>>>>>    )
>>>>>>>    - *State for merging windows*: this section addresses how we
>>>>>>>    will deal with non-combinable state in conjunction with merging 
>>>>>>> windows.  (
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GadEkAmtbJQjmqiqfSzGw3b66TKerm8tyn6TK4blAys/edit#heading=h.ctxkcgabtzpy
>>>>>>>    )
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me know any further comments and suggestions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:29 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nice. I know that Java users have found it helpful to have this
>>>>>>>> lower-level way of writing pipelines when the high-level primitives 
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> quite have the tight control they are looking for. I hope it will be a 
>>>>>>>> big
>>>>>>>> draw for Python, too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (commenting on the doc)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kenn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:15 PM Charles Chen <c...@google.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I want to share a proposal for adding user state and timer support
>>>>>>>>> to the Beam Python SDK and get the community's thoughts on how such 
>>>>>>>>> an API
>>>>>>>>> should look:
>>>>>>>>> https://s.apache.org/beam-python-user-state-and-timers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let me know what you think and please add any comments and
>>>>>>>>> suggestions you may have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Charles
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Reply via email to