Airblader commented on pull request #17118: URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/17118#issuecomment-912270245
> However, in classes FilterPushDownSpec and WatermarkPushDownSpec, their digest should be generated by expressions which are not in these classes. Yes, which to me sounds like moving the responsibility of producing the extra digests into the specs is actually incorrect. We cannot ask the spec to convert itself into digests if we need to pass the content for those digests into it. This indirection makes things less transparent to me. Where previously in these rules it was very clear which expressions were added to the digest, the generic method in the spec now receives an argument with "some" expressions, but for the spec it is unclear what exactly those expressions will be. If in the future we have some more specs which need information passed into them from the rule, the signature of this method would have to be expanded to cover all possible arguments that a rule might want to pass into the spec. I don't think that's a good design. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
