Github user kl0u commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4145
Hi @wuchong ! Nice work!
I have some changes to propose in the code itself, but before moving on
with this, I have some questions about the need of the change.
For the second, I have commented on the JIRA (FLINK-6939) and it would be
nice to finish the discussion there first, before checking the following
comments.
Now for the comments on the code I would suggest the following:
1) Remove the `TransitionInfo` from the `ConditionRegistry` and replace it
with the `StateTransition<T>`, as the `TransitionInfo` is just a copy of the
state transition. Also make the
`ConditionRegistry`, `ConditionRegistry<T>`.
2) Pass the `ConditionRegistry` to the `State` itself in the constructor.
This will simplify all the changes of the `addStateTransition()`,
`addProceed()`... as they do not need the registry as an additional argument
anymore.
3) If we agree to keep the `RichIterativeFunction`, then we should probably
think if we can remove the non-rich `IterativeCondition` (although this is
optional).
For these changes, I have a branch where I tested them a bit but of course
feel free to make the code nicer, and also tell me if I did any change that
does not seem reasonable to you. This branch was just a fast testing branch on
my side. You can find it here:
https://github.com/kl0u/flink/tree/cep-iter-pr
Again thanks a lot for the work and I am looking forward to you comments!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastruct...@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.
---
