Quick response: I am not opposed to that, but there are tuple libraries around already.
Do you need specifically the Flink tuples, for interoperability between Flink and other projects? On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Stephan Ewen <[email protected]> wrote: > Should we move this to the dev list? > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Flavio Pompermaier <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Any thought about this (move tuples classes in a separate self-contained >> project with no transitive dependencies so that to be easily used in other >> external projects)? >> >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Flavio Pompermaier <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Do you think it could be a good idea to extract Flink tuples in a >>> separate project so that to allow simpler dependency management in >>> Flin-compatible projects? >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Fabian Hueske <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> at the moment, Tuples are more efficient than POJOs, because POJO >>>> fields are accessed via Java reflection whereas Tuple fields are directly >>>> accessed. >>>> This performance penalty could be overcome by code-generated >>>> seriliazers and comparators but I am not aware of any work in that >>>> direction. >>>> >>>> Best, Fabian >>>> >>>> 2015-07-06 11:01 GMT+02:00 Flavio Pompermaier <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> Hi to all, >>>>> I was thinking to write my own flink-compatible library and I need >>>>> basically a Tuple5. >>>>> >>>>> Is there any performace loss in using a POJO with 5 String fields vs a >>>>> Tuple5? >>>>> If yes, wouldn't be a good idea to extract flink tuples in a separate >>>>> simple project (e.g. flink-java-tuples) that has no other dependency to >>>>> enable other libs to write their flink-compatible logic without the need >>>>> to >>>>> exclude all the transitive dependency of flink-java? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Flavio >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >
