[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1034?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14075451#comment-14075451
]
Ufuk Celebi commented on FLINK-1034:
------------------------------------
Thanks for the explanation [~ktzoumas]. I didn't think about it like that
before. ;-)
We also had an offline discussion with [~StephanEwen] and the argument he made
was that we shouldn't change the API as syntactic sugar.
Another option would be to deprecate {{DataSet.reduceGroup}} and overload
{{DataSet.reduce}}. This would also be in line with the overriden reduce method
in both {{GroupReduceFunction}} and {{ReduceFunction}}.
I am very unemotional ;-) about this and don't want to discuss it to death, but
would appreciate short feedback to the last suggestion with the overloaded
reduce.
> Inconsistent naming of DataSet reduceGroup and GroupReduceFunction
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-1034
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1034
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Java API
> Reporter: Ufuk Celebi
> Priority: Trivial
> Labels: breaking-api
>
> I don't know if it is on purpose or not, but I found it to be inconsistent
> and sometimes also confusing:
> Why not
> {code:java}
> input.groupReduce(new GroupReduceFunction() {...})
> {code}
> instead of the current
> {code:java}
> input.reduceGroup(new GroupReduceFunction() {...})
> {code}
> I think it's the same line of thinking, which results in overriding a
> {{reduce}} method in {{GroupReduceFunction}} instead of a {{groupReduce}}
> method.
> Is there a nice way to unify this?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
