Ah, that is actually a good argument...
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Till Rohrmann <till.rohrm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The latter version would allow to use the apply method in Scala
> without calling it directly, whereas in the first case the user would
> have to spell it out.
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@apache.org> wrote:
> > 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
> >>
>
