+1 2017-03-02 12:11 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>:
> Ok, so it seems we have to go with the OutputTag variant for windows as > well, for now. > > For Flink 2.0 we can change that. Would everyone be OK with that? > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Flink enforces binary compatibility for all classes tagged with the > @Public > > annotation. > > Binary compatibility allows users to execute a job against a newer Flink > > version without recompiling their job jar. > > Your change alters the return type of some methods (apply()). I think > > there's no way to do that in a binary compatible way. > > > > The only thing we could do is keep the return type as is, but return a > > WindowedOperation instance. > > Users could then manually cast the returned object to access the late > > stream. > > > > Downgrading to "source compatibility" only should fix the issue, but then > > users have to recompile their Flink jobs when upgrading the Flink > version. > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Chen and Aljoscha, > > > > > > thanks for the great proposal and work. > > > > > > I prefer the WindowedOperator.getLateStream() variant without explicit > > > tags. > > > I think it is fine to start adding side output to ProcessFunction > (keyed > > > and non-keyed) and window operators and see how it is picked up by > users. > > > > > > Best, Fabian > > > > > > > > > 2017-02-28 15:42 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Quick update: I created a branch where I make the result type of > > > > WindowedStream operations more specific: > > > > https://github.com/aljoscha/flink/blob/windowed-stream- > > > > result-specific/flink-streaming-java/src/main/java/ > > > > org/apache/flink/streaming/api/datastream/WindowedStream.java > > > > > > > > We would need this for the "lateStream()" API without the explicit > > > > OutputTag. > > > > > > > > It seems the backwards compatibility checker doesn't like this and > > > > complains about breaking binary backwards compatibility. +Robert > > Metzger > > > > <rmetz...@apache.org> Do you have an idea what we could do there? > > > > > > > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 12:39 Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < > > > aljos...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I see the ProcessFunction as a bit of the generalised future of > > > > FlatMap, > > > > > so > > > > > > to me it makes sense to only allow side outputs on the > > > ProcessFunction > > > > > but > > > > > > I'm open for anything. If we decide for this I'm happy with an > > > > additional > > > > > > method on Collector. > > > > > > > > > > I think it's best to restrict this to ProcessFunction after all > > (given > > > > > that we allow it for non-keyed streams, etc.). ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
