[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-34427?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17284507#comment-17284507
]
Jungtaek Lim edited comment on SPARK-34427 at 2/15/21, 12:49 AM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OK I agree it's going to meaningless argue. I should have raised the discussion
to dev@ mailing list.
(EDIT:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0802c6e8c5c4f51c0b781d137e6c62eb4e4105fbaea4d9743e8b6c51%40%3Cdev.spark.apache.org%3E)
Please don't get me wrong. My origin concern is that you're trying to preempt
major two efforts which would take non-trivial time for each one. There's no
prove that there's ongoing work internally - you should have created a design
doc or WIP PR if you made a meaningful progress internally, but you shared
nothing and just assigned both issues to you and said I'm working on both.
Sorry but that's not something I can understand.
Again I'm not "just" concerned about this because it conflicts SPARK-10816. You
want it? I can give up SPARK-10816 if you want it, though I'd -1 if you don't
ensure having design doc, perf test, etc. to make the efforts on par. Just I
don't think you can take up multiple major efforts altogether even none of
things don't reach the PR (even WIP). I would have no argument if you just do
the thing one by one, leaving space for contributors to play with.
(Say I have no concern if you let RocksDB stuff be taken over from other
contributor to focus on this stuff. Vice versa.)
was (Author: kabhwan):
OK I agree it's going to meaningless argue. I should have raised the discussion
to dev@ mailing list. Will do.
Please don't get me wrong. My origin concern is that you're trying to preempt
major two efforts which would take non-trivial time for each one. There's no
prove that there's ongoing work internally - you should have created a design
doc or WIP PR if you made a meaningful progress internally, but you shared
nothing and just assigned both issues to you and said I'm working on both.
Sorry but that's not something I can understand.
Again I'm not "just" concerned about this because it conflicts SPARK-10816. You
want it? I can give up SPARK-10816 if you want it, though I'd -1 if you don't
ensure having design doc, perf test, etc. to make the efforts on par. Just I
don't think you can take up multiple major efforts altogether even none of
things don't reach the PR (even WIP). I would have no argument if you just do
the thing one by one, leaving space for contributors to play with.
(Say I have no concern if you let RocksDB stuff be taken over from other
contributor to focus on this stuff. Vice versa.)
> Session window support in SS
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: SPARK-34427
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-34427
> Project: Spark
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Structured Streaming
> Affects Versions: 3.2.0
> Reporter: L. C. Hsieh
> Priority: Major
>
> Currently structured streaming supports two kinds of windows: tumbling window
> and sliding window. Another useful window function is session window. Which
> is not supported by SS. We have user requirement to use session window. We'd
> like to have this support in the upstream.
> About session window, there is some info:
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-stable/dev/stream/operators/windows.html#session-windows.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@spark.apache.org
