Hi all!
I think that the "Features" page of the website is a bit out of date.
I made an effort to stub a new one. It is committed under "features_new.md"
and not yet built as an HTML page.
If you want to take a look and help building this, pull the flink-web git
repository and build the website
I'll be happy to help, eh draw ;-)
2015-07-06 15:22 GMT+02:00 Stephan Ewen :
> Hi all!
>
> I think that the "Features" page of the website is a bit out of date.
>
> I made an effort to stub a new one. It is committed under "features_new.md
> "
> and not yet built as an HTML page.
>
> If you want
Hi Stephan,
Thanks for the feature page update. I think it is much more informative and
better structured now.
By the way, you could also open a pull request for your changes on
https://github.com/apache/flink-web/pulls
Cheers,
Max
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Fabian Hueske wrote:
> I'll
Thanks Max!
Did not even know we had a github mirror of the flink-web repo...
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Maximilian Michels wrote:
> Hi Stephan,
>
> Thanks for the feature page update. I think it is much more informative and
> better structured now.
>
> By the way, you could also open a pu
I also like the new feature page. I better conveys the strong points of
Flink, since it's more to the point.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> Thanks Max!
>
> Did not even know we had a github mirror of the flink-web repo...
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Maximilian Mich
+1 for the clear and brief feature descriptions!
I am not so sure about the structure of the points, especially separating
"Streaming" and "Batch and Streaming in One System" does not support the
message of a unified system, IMO.
How about categorizing the points into three sections (Internals, A
I actually put quite some thought into the structure of the points. They
reflect pretty much what I observed (meetups and talks) where people get
excited and what they are missing.
The structure follows the line of through of "stream processor that also
does batch very well". And then separate the
I think the content is pretty good, much better than before. But the page
structure could be better (and this is very important in my opinion).
Now it just looks like a long list of features without any ways to navigate
between them. We should probably have something at the top that summarizes
the
+1 to adding links
In fact, all points should link to some documentation part.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Gyula Fóra wrote:
> I think the content is pretty good, much better than before. But the page
> structure could be better (and this is very important in my opinion).
> Now it just lo
So, what do we do with this now?
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
> +1 to adding links
>
> In fact, all points should link to some documentation part.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Gyula Fóra wrote:
>
>> I think the content is pretty good, much better than before. B
I would publish it, it is definitely better than the old one.
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 at 11:32 Stephan Ewen wrote:
> So, what do we do with this now?
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Stephan Ewen wrote:
>
> > +1 to adding links
> >
> > In fact, all points should link to some documentation part.
>
+1 for updating it. It is a great improvement and we can still change
details subsequently.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Aljoscha Krettek
wrote:
> I would publish it, it is definitely better than the old one.
>
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 at 11:32 Stephan Ewen wrote:
>
> > So, what do we do with t
+1 to publish now.
On Wednesday, July 8, 2015, Maximilian Michels wrote:
> +1 for updating it. It is a great improvement and we can still change
> details subsequently.
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Aljoscha Krettek >
> wrote:
>
> > I would publish it, it is definitely better than the ol
13 matches
Mail list logo
