I actually prefer the first one as well...
Am 24.11.2014 20:56 schrieb "Fabian Hueske" <fhue...@apache.org>:
> I prefer the first option where partitioning (assigning keys to partitions)
> follows key selection.
>
>
> 2014-11-24 19:52 GMT+01:00 Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>:
>
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Custom partitioners allow you manually define the assignment of keys to
> > partitions, for cases that have special constraints.
> >
> > This is a call for opinion on the Syntax for custom partitioners, in the
> > case of Join and CoGroup.
> >
> > Option 1:
> >
> > input1
> > .join(input2)
> > .where("key1").equalTo("key2")
> >
> > .withPartitioner( (key, num) -> key % num )
> >
> > .with( (right, left) -> new Tuple3<>(right.key1, right.name,
> > left.sizeOfEyebrow) )
> >
> > Option 2:
> >
> > input1
> > .join(input2)
> > .where("key1").equalTo("key2")
> > .with( (right, left) -> new Tuple3<>(right.key1, right.name,
> > left.sizeOfEyebrow) )
> >
> > .withPartitioner( (key, num) -> key % num )
> >
> >
> > (The UDF and the partitioner calls are swapped here) (CoGroup would be
> > analogous)
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Stephan
> >
>
