Re: Scala DSL

+1 for dsls/scio. Let me know how I can help there ! Thanks Regards JB On 07/01/2016 08:43 PM, Neville Li wrote: Looks like dsls/scio is the winner :) I like it too plus we get to keep the Scio name. This also leaves room for other Scala wrappers of different flavor. Scio is a DSL in the doma

Re: Scala DSL

Looks like dsls/scio is the winner :) I like it too plus we get to keep the Scio name. This also leaves room for other Scala wrappers of different flavor. Scio is a DSL in the domain of functional style data pipelines. On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:55 AM Ismaël Mejía wrote: > Just to summarize, at

Re: Scala DSL

Just to summarize, at this point: - Everybody agrees about the fact that scio is not an SDK. - Almost everybody agrees that given the current choice they would prefer ‘dsls/scio’ - Some of us are not particularly married with the DSL classification. I have a proposition to make, we can define two

Re: Scala DSL

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Dan Halperin wrote: > > I love the > > name scio. But I think sdks/scala might be most appropriate and would > make > > it a first class citizen for Beam. > > > > I am strongly against it being in the 'sdks/' top-level module -- it's not > a Beam SDK. Unlike DSL,

Re: Scala DSL

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Agree for dsls/scio > > >> > > > >> > Regards > > >> > JB > > >> > > > >> > > > >>

Re: Scala DSL

i, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Agree for dsls/scio > >> > > >> > Regards > >> > JB > >> > > >> > > >> > On 06/24/2016 10:22 PM, Lukasz Cwik wrote: > >> > > >

Re: Scala DSL

gt; Agree for dsls/scio >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > >> > On 06/24/2016 10:22 PM, Lukasz Cwik wrote: >> > >> >> +1 for dsls/scio for the already listed reasons >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 a

Re: Scala DSL

t; wrote: > >> > >> Hello. When it comes to SDK vs DSL - I fully agree with Frances. About > >>> dsls/java/scio or dsls/scio - dsls/java/scio may cause confusion, scio > >>> is a > >>> scala DSL but lives under java directory (?) - that makes s

Re: Scala DSL

lo. When it comes to SDK vs DSL - I fully agree with Frances. About >>> dsls/java/scio or dsls/scio - dsls/java/scio may cause confusion, scio >>> is a >>> scala DSL but lives under java directory (?) - that makes sense only once >>> you get that scio is using java

Re: Scala DSL

/scio may cause confusion, scio is a scala DSL but lives under java directory (?) - that makes sense only once you get that scio is using java SDK under the hood. Thus, +1 to dsls/scio. - Rafal On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Kenneth Knowles wrote: My +1 goes to dsls/scio. It already has a cool

Re: Scala DSL

+1 for dsls/scio for the already listed reasons On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Rafal Wojdyla wrote: > Hello. When it comes to SDK vs DSL - I fully agree with Frances. About > dsls/java/scio or dsls/scio - dsls/java/scio may cause confusion, scio is a > scala DSL but lives u

Re: Scala DSL

Hello. When it comes to SDK vs DSL - I fully agree with Frances. About dsls/java/scio or dsls/scio - dsls/java/scio may cause confusion, scio is a scala DSL but lives under java directory (?) - that makes sense only once you get that scio is using java SDK under the hood. Thus, +1 to dsls/scio

Re: Scala DSL

My +1 goes to dsls/scio. It already has a cool name, so let's use it. And there might be other Scala-based DSLs. On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Ismaël Mejía wrote: > ​Hello everyone, > > Neville, thanks a lot for your contribution. Your work is amazing and I am > really happy that this scala i

Re: Scala DSL

​Hello everyone, Neville, thanks a lot for your contribution. Your work is amazing and I am really happy that this scala integration is finally happening. Congratulations to you and your team. I *strongly* disagree about the DSL classification for scio for one reason, if you go to the root of the

Re: Scala DSL

Hi Dan, fair enough. As I'm also working on new DSLs (XML, JSON), I already created the dsls module. So, I would say dsls/scala. WDYT ? Regards JB On 06/24/2016 05:07 PM, Dan Halperin wrote: I don't think that sdks/scala is the right place -- scio is not a Beam Scala SDK; it wraps the exi

Re: Scala DSL

I don't think that sdks/scala is the right place -- scio is not a Beam Scala SDK; it wraps the existing Java SDK. Some options: * sdks/java/extensions (Scio builds on the Java SDK) -- mentally vetoed since Scio isn't an extension for the Java SDK, but rather a wrapper * dsls/java/scio (Scio is a

Re: Scala DSL

Good point about new Fn and the fact it's based on the Java SDK. It's just that in term of "marketing", it's a good message to provide a Scala SDK even if technically it's more a DSL. For instance, a valid "marketing" DSL would be a Java fluent DSL on top of the Java SDK, or a declarative XML

Re: Scala DSL

+Rafal & Andrew again I am leaning DSL for two reasons: (1) scio uses the existing java execution environment (and won't have a language-specific fn harness of its own), and (2) it changes the abstractions that users interact with. I recently saw a scio repl demo from Reuven -- there's some reall

Re: Scala DSL

Hi Neville, thanks for the update ! As it's another language support, and to clearly identify the purpose, I would say sdks/scala. Regards JB On 06/23/2016 11:56 PM, Neville Li wrote: +folks in my team On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:57 PM Neville Li wrote: Hi all, I'm the co-author of Scio

Re: Scala DSL

+folks in my team On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:57 PM Neville Li wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm the co-author of Scio and am in the > progress of moving code to Beam (BEAM-302 > ). Just wondering if > sdks/scala is the right

Scala DSL

Hi all, I'm the co-author of Scio and am in the progress of moving code to Beam (BEAM-302 ). Just wondering if sdks/scala is the right place for this code or if something like dsls/scio is a better choice? What do yo