Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flink.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flink.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: message received from 54.76.25.247 which
 is an MX secondary for dev@flink.apache.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: ewenstephan@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGWx-_v==qvRtEUp6o4x9rE86rxbg0RhteutR8fsS8W1qVwoeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CANMXwW1N9ugQ7CYbC6SeRcO9YPz_4SkOrPM1m1P+cv=vm5tJbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANC1h_uwwdMwN8ERnZrwkuZ91kcSY=Op0yyf5F_h3KT8s0d7SA@mail.gmail.com>
	<DDA85025-28BD-49DB-AA30-B2B38063F659@apache.org>
	<CAC27z=PA08Dzh_8fQWFCTuaieudsToj7mLUHi9jKGH=9S--Neg@mail.gmail.com>
	<552F9D41.5000903@apache.org>
	<CAAdrtT16mPecpDZLRKkRXwnah=xGs7qXcgsyH2dF5PmEoTMPTA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGco--YxKkjumHR-5-LeZ2h_+sWwyzaEaQAVGpHj7WFH7=cJAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANC1h_tvhXFKhNkO+BRT6Emwagr--EOXCSB+3jr83A3ru2uvpw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALuGr6amLX5SmCkd3JTPkfSkkp8GcEBfaqBn6TujDtKsmd7pGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANC1h_vnRZTe_X5HRx=ur+Szs6XC8J9XyaectzJt5owZbiw39Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALuGr6asDd4o4EhMSq8+VCz6o578U1mQjmugethEpajWtAKUqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGWx-_v==qvRtEUp6o4x9rE86rxbg0RhteutR8fsS8W1qVwoeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:55:23 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CANC1h_sY6RV0jSUmfCRx6SXCARunx4SLG6tU=b7G1EcBH8ZgnA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: About Operator and OperatorBase
From: Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org>
To: "dev@flink.apache.org" <dev@flink.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112ccf2b7855505145083c3

--089e0112ccf2b7855505145083c3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I think the main difference to the Java API is right now that the JavaAPI
is fluent and the common API is compositional. Otherwise there is not much
in the common API any more.

Not sure whether this warrants an extra API...


On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Kostas Tzoumas <ktzoumas@apache.org> wrote:

> I think Stephan meant Meteor, an old API when Flink was Stratosphere. This
> was never part of the code that made it to Apache.
>
> Not sure if we want to remove the common API, as it provides a dataflow
> abstraction that is higher level than the JobGraph. Admittedly, I don't
> have a better argument other than "it might be useful some day" and happy
> to change my opinion :-)
>
> Kostas
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.saputra@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the explanation, Stephan. I always wonder why the extra
> > common APIs exist.
> >
> > Then I think this should be high priority if we want to remove the
> > common API to reduce the unnecessary layer and "dead code". As Ufuk
> > mentioned before, better doing it now before more stuff build on top
> > of Flink.
> >
> > So removing old Record API [1] and the tests depending on them is step
> > one of the process, but what is JSON API?
> >
> > - Henry
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1681
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Originally, we had multiple Apis with different data models: the
> current
> > > Java API, the record api, a JSON API. The common API was the data model
> > > agnostic set of operators on which they built.
> > >
> > > It has become redundant when we saw how well things can be built in top
> > of
> > > the Java API, using the TypeInformation. Now, Scala, Python, Dataflow,
> > all
> > > build on top of the Java API.
> >
>

--089e0112ccf2b7855505145083c3--