Github user pnowojski commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4368
Thanks! :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if
Github user tzulitai commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4368
Alright, this looks good to merge now!
Merging ..
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user tzulitai commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4368
I would also like another look a bit later today. Can merge after that :)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user aljoscha commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4368
@pnowojski The changes look good! I'll have another look at the whole thing
before merging? Or maybe @tzulitai wants to do that? ð
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this
Github user pnowojski commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4368
@EronWright, there shouldn't be any difficulties with that. I think that
there is only one functional difference between `TwoPhaseCommitSourceFunction`
and `PravegaWriter` - the first one
Github user EronWright commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/4368
@pnowojski looks great. You mentioned the Pravaga connector as a
motivation, did you look at its implementation and do you anticipate any
challenges in porting it o this new framework?
