My $0.02 "IO" has an established meaning in Beam dev argot but I think on the web page I would use the word "connector" or something more universal.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 7:39 PM Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@google.com> wrote: > > (1) Add a top level IO roadmap. > I like this, but it is important on the roadmap to be very clear about language / SDK. > (2) Add IO roadmap sub-sections under each SDK instead of at top level. > This seems OK to me too. If you are a user and you have some data you just want to see if it is going to be accessible to you soon. You probably already committed to a language. > (3) We don't need a IO roadmap since we already have > https://beam.apache.org/documentation/io/built-in/ > I think the roadmap / in-progress part should move to the new Roadmap and/or the wiki. Kenn > WDYT ? > > Thanks, > Cham > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Chamikara Jayalath <notificati...@github.com> > Date: Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 7:07 PM > Subject: Re: [apache/beam] [Website] Add roadmap at top level (#6718) > To: apache/beam <b...@noreply.github.com> > Cc: Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@google.com>, Your activity < > your_activ...@noreply.github.com> > > > Ok. Makes sense. Kenn and others, WDYT ? We can start writing down a > roadmap for IO if there's no objection. It can include more details about > some of the proposed IO mentioned in > https://beam.apache.org/documentation/io/built-in/ as well as information > on upcoming major IO related efforts such as cross-language IO support and > SDF (in addition to what will be available in portability roadmap for these > features). > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/6718#issuecomment-433262537>, or mute > the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKUZEUcsbL6bhjOfeRiNZmqtab3PDWBjks5uom5KgaJpZM4Xj9s1> > . >
