On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:52 PM Ahmed Abualsaud
wrote:
> Schema-aware transforms are not restricted to I/Os. An arbitrary transform
>> can be a Schema-Transform. Also, designation Read/Write does not map to an
>> arbitrary transform. Probably we should try to make this more generic ?
>>
>
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 1:38 PM Reuven Lax via dev
wrote:
> Out of curiosity, several IOs (including PubSub) already do support
> schemas. Are you planning on modifying those?
>
Schema-aware Transform is an overloaded term. I think this is about the
implementations of the following.
Out of curiosity, several IOs (including PubSub) already do support
schemas. Are you planning on modifying those?
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:50 AM Damon Douglas via dev
wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> Do we like the following Java class naming convention for
> SchemaTransformProviders [1]? The
>
> Schema-aware transforms are not restricted to I/Os. An arbitrary transform
> can be a Schema-Transform. Also, designation Read/Write does not map to an
> arbitrary transform. Probably we should try to make this more generic ?
>
Agreed, I suggest keeping everything on the left side of the
One distinction here is the difference between the URN for a provider /
transform, and the class name in Java.
We should have a standard for both, but they are distinct
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 3:39 PM Chamikara Jayalath via dev <
dev@beam.apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:50
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:50 AM Damon Douglas via dev
wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> Do we like the following Java class naming convention for
> SchemaTransformProviders [1]? The proposal is:
>
> (Read|Write)SchemaTransformProvider
>
>
> *For those new to Beam, even if this is your first day,
Thank you for the informative email Damon!
I am in favor of setting an intuitive naming convention early on to reduce
confusion when Schema Transforms become more widespread. I like the
proposed name in your email and I think this convention should also apply
to the rest of the classes involved
Hello Everyone,
Do we like the following Java class naming convention for
SchemaTransformProviders [1]? The proposal is:
(Read|Write)SchemaTransformProvider
*For those new to Beam, even if this is your first day, consider yourselves
a welcome contributor to this conversation. Below are
+1 (binding). - I validated the python quick starts on direct runner.
Thank you!
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 9:51 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 3:52 PM Chamikara Jayalath via dev
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> > Please review and vote
+1 (binding)
Tested local tests for existing DF templates.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:17 AM Alexey Romanenko
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> —
> Alexey
>
> On 15 Nov 2022, at 14:37, Ritesh Ghorse via dev
> wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Validated Go SDK quickstart on Direct and Dataflow runner. Also
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 3:52 PM Chamikara Jayalath via dev
wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version 2.43.0, as
> follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
+1 (binding)
—
Alexey
> On 15 Nov 2022, at 14:37, Ritesh Ghorse via dev wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Validated Go SDK quickstart on Direct and Dataflow runner. Also validated
> Dataframe wrapper on Portable and Dataflow runner.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 5:17 AM Anand Inguva via dev
+1 (non-binding)
Validated Go SDK quickstart on Direct and Dataflow runner. Also validated
Dataframe wrapper on Portable and Dataflow runner.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 5:17 AM Anand Inguva via dev
wrote:
> +1(non-binding)
>
> Validated Python wordcount example on Direct and Dataflow runner.
This is your daily summary of Beam's current high priority issues that may need
attention.
See https://beam.apache.org/contribute/issue-priorities for the meaning and
expectations around issue priorities.
Unassigned P1 Issues:
https://github.com/apache/beam/issues/24163 [Bug]:
14 matches
Mail list logo