Hi Max,
thanks for comment. I probably should have put links to discussion
threads here in the vote thread. Relevant would be
- (a pretty lengthy) discussion about whether sorting by timestamp
should be part of the model - [1]
- part of the discussion related to the annotation - [2]
Regarding the open question in the design document - these are not meant
to be open questions in regard to the design of the annotation and I'll
remove that for now, as it is not (directly) related.
Now - main reason for this vote is that there is actually not a clear
consensus in the ML thread. There are plenty of words like "should",
"could", "would" and "maybe", so I wanted to be sure there is consensus
to include this. I already run this in production for several months, so
it is definitely useful for me. :-) But that might not be sufficient.
I'd be very happy to answer any more questions.
Thanks,
Jan
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4609a1bb1662690d67950e76d2f1108b51327b8feaf9580de659552e@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
[2]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/dd9bec903102d9fcb4f390dc01513c0921eac1fedd8bcfdac630aaee@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
On 11/8/19 11:08 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote:
Hi Jan,
Disclaimer: I haven't followed the discussion closely, so I do not
want to comment on the technical details of the feature here.
From the outside, it looks like there may be open questions. Also, we
may need more motivation for what we can build with this feature or
how it will become useful to users.
There are many threads in Beam and I believe we need to carefully
prioritize the Beam feature set in order to focus on the things that
provide the most value to our users.
Cheers,
Max
On 07.11.19 15:55, Jan Lukavský wrote:
Hi,
is there anything I can do to make this more attractive? :-) Any
feedback would be much appreciated.
Many thanks,
Jan
Dne 5. 11. 2019 14:10 napsal uživatel Jan Lukavský <je...@seznam.cz>:
Hi,
I'd like to open a vote on accepting design document [1] as a
base for
implementation of @RequiresTimeSortedInput annotation for stateful
DoFns. Associated JIRA [2] and PR [3] contains only subset of the
whole
functionality (allowed lateness ignored and no possibility to
specify
UDF for time - or sequential number - to be extracted from data).
The PR
will be subject to independent review process (please feel free to
self-request review if you are interested in this) after the vote
would
eventually succeed. Missing features from the design document
will be
added later in subsequent JIRA issues, so that it doesn't block
availability of this feature.
Please vote on adding support for @RequiresTimeSortedInput.
The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if at least
three +1
and no -1 PMC (binding) votes are cast.
[ ] +1 Add support for @RequiresTimeSortedInput
[ ] 0 I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I assume it's ok
[ ] -1 Do not support @RequiresTimeSortedInput - please provide
explanation.
Thanks,
Jan
[1]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ObLVUFsf1NcG8ZuIZE4aVy2RYKx2FfyMhkZYWPnI9-c/edit?usp=sharing
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-8550
[3] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8774
