[DISCUSS] Name of Expression API and DataSet abstraction

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

Hi Folks,
as mentioned in the title, we need a good name for this. Right now the
API is called Expression API, the package is flink-expressions and the
thing on which you call operations (equivalent to DataSet or
DataStream) is called ExpressionOperation. Especially the last one is
extremely ugly.

Do you have any ideas how we should name those things? @Fabian
mentioned Relation API and Relation, as name for the thing on which
you work.

Cheers,
Aljoscha

[mxm]

Hi Aljoscha,

Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not keep
flink-expressions.

I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction equivalent. For
consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At first
sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite intuitive
because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.

Best,
Max

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Folks,
> as mentioned in the title, we need a good name for this. Right now the
> API is called Expression API, the package is flink-expressions and the
> thing on which you call operations (equivalent to DataSet or
> DataStream) is called ExpressionOperation. Especially the last one is
> extremely ugly.
>
> Do you have any ideas how we should name those things? @Fabian
> mentioned Relation API and Relation, as name for the thing on which
> you work.
>
> Cheers,
> Aljoscha

[Ufuk Celebi-2]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not keep
> flink-expressions.
>
> I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction equivalent. For
> consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At first
> sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite intuitive
> because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
>


+1

I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)

(There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)

[Márton Balassi]

+1 for Max's suggestion.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not keep
> > flink-expressions.
> >
> > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction equivalent. For
> > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At first
> > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite intuitive
> > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
> >
>
>
> +1
>
> I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
>
> (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
>

[Till Rohrmann]

+1 for DataTable

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1 for Max's suggestion.
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not keep
> > > flink-expressions.
> > >
> > > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction equivalent. For
> > > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At first
> > > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite intuitive
> > > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
> > >
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
> >
> > (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
> >
>

[Hermann Gábor]

+1 for DataTable

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 for DataTable
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for Max's suggestion.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not keep
> > > > flink-expressions.
> > > >
> > > > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction equivalent. For
> > > > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At first
> > > > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite intuitive
> > > > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
> > >
> > > (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
> > >
> >
>

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

I like Relation or Rel, is shorter.
On Mar 16, 2015 4:52 PM, "Hermann Gábor" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 for DataTable
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for DataTable
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for Max's suggestion.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not keep
> > > > > flink-expressions.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction equivalent.
> For
> > > > > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At first
> > > > > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite
> intuitive
> > > > > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
> > > >
> > > > (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Vasiliki Kalavri]

I like Relation and Relation API more than Table API.
Rel is quite cryptic though :)
On Mar 16, 2015 5:58 PM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I like Relation or Rel, is shorter.
> On Mar 16, 2015 4:52 PM, "Hermann Gábor" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > +1 for DataTable
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for DataTable
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for Max's suggestion.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not keep
> > > > > > flink-expressions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction equivalent.
> > For
> > > > > > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At
> first
> > > > > > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite
> > intuitive
> > > > > > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Fabian Hueske-2]

I am also more in favor of Rel and Relation, but DataTable nicely follows
the terms DataSet and DataStream.
 On Mar 16, 2015 4:58 PM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I like Relation or Rel, is shorter.
> On Mar 16, 2015 4:52 PM, "Hermann Gábor" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > +1 for DataTable
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 for DataTable
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for Max's suggestion.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not keep
> > > > > > flink-expressions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction equivalent.
> > For
> > > > > > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At
> first
> > > > > > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite
> > intuitive
> > > > > > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Henry Saputra]

I like the Relation or Relational. So maybe we could use DataRelation
as the abstraction?

- Henry

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am also more in favor of Rel and Relation, but DataTable nicely follows
> the terms DataSet and DataStream.
>  On Mar 16, 2015 4:58 PM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I like Relation or Rel, is shorter.
>> On Mar 16, 2015 4:52 PM, "Hermann Gábor" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 for DataTable
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1 for DataTable
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <
>> > [hidden email]
>> > > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +1 for Max's suggestion.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not keep
>> > > > > > flink-expressions.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction equivalent.
>> > For
>> > > > > > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At
>> first
>> > > > > > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite
>> > intuitive
>> > > > > > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > +1
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
>> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>

[Fabian Hueske-2]

I'm in favor of Relation API because the API operates on a set of tuples
with a fixed (flat) schema which is known as relation from relational
databases.

Everybody who took a database intro class should be familiar with this term.
On Mar 21, 2015 5:14 PM, "Henry Saputra" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I like the Relation or Relational. So maybe we could use DataRelation
> as the abstraction?
>
> - Henry
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I am also more in favor of Rel and Relation, but DataTable nicely follows
> > the terms DataSet and DataStream.
> >  On Mar 16, 2015 4:58 PM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I like Relation or Rel, is shorter.
> >> On Mar 16, 2015 4:52 PM, "Hermann Gábor" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1 for DataTable
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > +1 for DataTable
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <
> >> > [hidden email]
> >> > > >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > +1 for Max's suggestion.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not
> keep
> >> > > > > > flink-expressions.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction
> equivalent.
> >> > For
> >> > > > > > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At
> >> first
> >> > > > > > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite
> >> > intuitive
> >> > > > > > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > +1
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
> >> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

[Henry Saputra]

OK, as recommended by Fabian, I explain why I like Relational better =)

The concept of Relational suggest the concept of querying data based
on the relationship of different sources and the predicates/ filters
attached to them.

Or we could go more like keyword name such as "REMOQ" which stands for
Relational Model Query =P
This way is in the same spirit as Gelly as the name of the new graph modiule.

- Henry

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Henry Saputra <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I like the Relation or Relational. So maybe we could use DataRelation
> as the abstraction?
>
> - Henry
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I am also more in favor of Rel and Relation, but DataTable nicely follows
>> the terms DataSet and DataStream.
>>  On Mar 16, 2015 4:58 PM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> I like Relation or Rel, is shorter.
>>> On Mar 16, 2015 4:52 PM, "Hermann Gábor" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> > +1 for DataTable
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > +1 for DataTable
>>> > >
>>> > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > > >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > +1 for Max's suggestion.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <
>>> [hidden email]>
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not keep
>>> > > > > > flink-expressions.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction equivalent.
>>> > For
>>> > > > > > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At
>>> first
>>> > > > > > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite
>>> > intuitive
>>> > > > > > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > +1
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
>>> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>

[Paris Carbone]

Both names look ok but if I had to choose I would go for the Relation API.
It defines a new DSL in contrast to data types (ie DataSet, DataStream) so it doesn’t have to follow the same convention.
Plus, it is a single word with sufficient meaning.

Paris

On 21 Mar 2015, at 17:29, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

I'm in favor of Relation API because the API operates on a set of tuples
with a fixed (flat) schema which is known as relation from relational
databases.

Everybody who took a database intro class should be familiar with this term.
On Mar 21, 2015 5:14 PM, "Henry Saputra" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

I like the Relation or Relational. So maybe we could use DataRelation
as the abstraction?

- Henry

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
I am also more in favor of Rel and Relation, but DataTable nicely follows
the terms DataSet and DataStream.
On Mar 16, 2015 4:58 PM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
wrote:

I like Relation or Rel, is shorter.
On Mar 16, 2015 4:52 PM, "Hermann Gábor" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

+1 for DataTable

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
wrote:

+1 for DataTable

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>

wrote:

+1 for Max's suggestion.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
wrote:

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <
[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
wrote:


Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not
keep
flink-expressions.

I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction
equivalent.
For
consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At
first
sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite
intuitive
because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.



+1

I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)

(There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

I also prefer Relation. So what should we do? Doesn't really look like
consensus.

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Paris Carbone <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Both names look ok but if I had to choose I would go for the Relation API.
> It defines a new DSL in contrast to data types (ie DataSet, DataStream) so it doesn’t have to follow the same convention.
> Plus, it is a single word with sufficient meaning.
>
> Paris
>
> On 21 Mar 2015, at 17:29, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> I'm in favor of Relation API because the API operates on a set of tuples
> with a fixed (flat) schema which is known as relation from relational
> databases.
>
> Everybody who took a database intro class should be familiar with this term.
> On Mar 21, 2015 5:14 PM, "Henry Saputra" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> I like the Relation or Relational. So maybe we could use DataRelation
> as the abstraction?
>
> - Henry
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> I am also more in favor of Rel and Relation, but DataTable nicely follows
> the terms DataSet and DataStream.
> On Mar 16, 2015 4:58 PM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> wrote:
>
> I like Relation or Rel, is shorter.
> On Mar 16, 2015 4:52 PM, "Hermann Gábor" <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> +1 for DataTable
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> wrote:
>
> +1 for DataTable
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> wrote:
>
> +1 for Max's suggestion.
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not
> keep
> flink-expressions.
>
> I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction
> equivalent.
> For
> consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At
> first
> sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite
> intuitive
> because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
>
>
>
> +1
>
> I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
>
> (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[aalexandrov]

+1 for DataTable as core abstraction name and "flink-table" or something
similar as the package name.

2015-03-25 11:54 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>:

> I also prefer Relation. So what should we do? Doesn't really look like
> consensus.
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Paris Carbone <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Both names look ok but if I had to choose I would go for the Relation
> API.
> > It defines a new DSL in contrast to data types (ie DataSet, DataStream)
> so it doesn’t have to follow the same convention.
> > Plus, it is a single word with sufficient meaning.
> >
> > Paris
> >
> > On 21 Mar 2015, at 17:29, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]<mailto:
> [hidden email]>> wrote:
> >
> > I'm in favor of Relation API because the API operates on a set of tuples
> > with a fixed (flat) schema which is known as relation from relational
> > databases.
> >
> > Everybody who took a database intro class should be familiar with this
> term.
> > On Mar 21, 2015 5:14 PM, "Henry Saputra" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >
> > I like the Relation or Relational. So maybe we could use DataRelation
> > as the abstraction?
> >
> > - Henry
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> > I am also more in favor of Rel and Relation, but DataTable nicely follows
> > the terms DataSet and DataStream.
> > On Mar 16, 2015 4:58 PM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]<mailto:
> [hidden email]>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I like Relation or Rel, is shorter.
> > On Mar 16, 2015 4:52 PM, "Hermann Gábor" <[hidden email]<mailto:
> [hidden email]>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for DataTable
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > +1 for DataTable
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <
> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > +1 for Max's suggestion.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <
> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not
> > keep
> > flink-expressions.
> >
> > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction
> > equivalent.
> > For
> > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At
> > first
> > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite
> > intuitive
> > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
> >
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
> >
> > (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Aljoscha Krettek-2]

But why DataTable? What other kind of Table could it be, CarTable? :D

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Alexander Alexandrov
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 for DataTable as core abstraction name and "flink-table" or something
> similar as the package name.
>
> 2015-03-25 11:54 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>:
>
>> I also prefer Relation. So what should we do? Doesn't really look like
>> consensus.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Paris Carbone <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Both names look ok but if I had to choose I would go for the Relation
>> API.
>> > It defines a new DSL in contrast to data types (ie DataSet, DataStream)
>> so it doesn’t have to follow the same convention.
>> > Plus, it is a single word with sufficient meaning.
>> >
>> > Paris
>> >
>> > On 21 Mar 2015, at 17:29, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]<mailto:
>> [hidden email]>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm in favor of Relation API because the API operates on a set of tuples
>> > with a fixed (flat) schema which is known as relation from relational
>> > databases.
>> >
>> > Everybody who took a database intro class should be familiar with this
>> term.
>> > On Mar 21, 2015 5:14 PM, "Henry Saputra" <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I like the Relation or Relational. So maybe we could use DataRelation
>> > as the abstraction?
>> >
>> > - Henry
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>> > I am also more in favor of Rel and Relation, but DataTable nicely follows
>> > the terms DataSet and DataStream.
>> > On Mar 16, 2015 4:58 PM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]<mailto:
>> [hidden email]>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > I like Relation or Rel, is shorter.
>> > On Mar 16, 2015 4:52 PM, "Hermann Gábor" <[hidden email]<mailto:
>> [hidden email]>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 for DataTable
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 for DataTable
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <
>> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > +1 for Max's suggestion.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <
>> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not
>> > keep
>> > flink-expressions.
>> >
>> > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction
>> > equivalent.
>> > For
>> > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At
>> > first
>> > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite
>> > intuitive
>> > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
>> >
>> > (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>

[Fabian Hueske-2]

I agree with Aljoscha on this. DataTable does not make a lot of sense to
me... (except for going nicely with DataSet and DataStream).

2015-03-25 13:58 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>:

> But why DataTable? What other kind of Table could it be, CarTable? :D
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Alexander Alexandrov
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > +1 for DataTable as core abstraction name and "flink-table" or something
> > similar as the package name.
> >
> > 2015-03-25 11:54 GMT+01:00 Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> I also prefer Relation. So what should we do? Doesn't really look like
> >> consensus.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Paris Carbone <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Both names look ok but if I had to choose I would go for the Relation
> >> API.
> >> > It defines a new DSL in contrast to data types (ie DataSet,
> DataStream)
> >> so it doesn’t have to follow the same convention.
> >> > Plus, it is a single word with sufficient meaning.
> >> >
> >> > Paris
> >> >
> >> > On 21 Mar 2015, at 17:29, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]<mailto:
> >> [hidden email]>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'm in favor of Relation API because the API operates on a set of
> tuples
> >> > with a fixed (flat) schema which is known as relation from relational
> >> > databases.
> >> >
> >> > Everybody who took a database intro class should be familiar with this
> >> term.
> >> > On Mar 21, 2015 5:14 PM, "Henry Saputra" <[hidden email]
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I like the Relation or Relational. So maybe we could use DataRelation
> >> > as the abstraction?
> >> >
> >> > - Henry
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> >> > I am also more in favor of Rel and Relation, but DataTable nicely
> follows
> >> > the terms DataSet and DataStream.
> >> > On Mar 16, 2015 4:58 PM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:
> >> [hidden email]>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I like Relation or Rel, is shorter.
> >> > On Mar 16, 2015 4:52 PM, "Hermann Gábor" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:
> >> [hidden email]>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > +1 for DataTable
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > +1 for DataTable
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <
> >> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > +1 for Max's suggestion.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <
> >> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not
> >> > keep
> >> > flink-expressions.
> >> >
> >> > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction
> >> > equivalent.
> >> > For
> >> > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At
> >> > first
> >> > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite
> >> > intuitive
> >> > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> > I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
> >> >
> >> > (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>

[Henry Saputra]

When consensus not happening we will go with VOTE. I think we have 2
candidates of names which are table and relation.

- Henry

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Aljoscha Krettek <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I also prefer Relation. So what should we do? Doesn't really look like
> consensus.
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Paris Carbone <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > Both names look ok but if I had to choose I would go for the Relation
> API.
> > It defines a new DSL in contrast to data types (ie DataSet, DataStream)
> so it doesn’t have to follow the same convention.
> > Plus, it is a single word with sufficient meaning.
> >
> > Paris
> >
> > On 21 Mar 2015, at 17:29, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;><mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>>> wrote:
> >
> > I'm in favor of Relation API because the API operates on a set of tuples
> > with a fixed (flat) schema which is known as relation from relational
> > databases.
> >
> > Everybody who took a database intro class should be familiar with this
> term.
> > On Mar 21, 2015 5:14 PM, "Henry Saputra" <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;><mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>>> wrote:
> >
> > I like the Relation or Relational. So maybe we could use DataRelation
> > as the abstraction?
> >
> > - Henry
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Fabian Hueske <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;><mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>>> wrote:
> > I am also more in favor of Rel and Relation, but DataTable nicely follows
> > the terms DataSet and DataStream.
> > On Mar 16, 2015 4:58 PM, "Aljoscha Krettek" <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;><mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I like Relation or Rel, is shorter.
> > On Mar 16, 2015 4:52 PM, "Hermann Gábor" <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;><mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>>> wrote:
> >
> > +1 for DataTable
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:11 PM Till Rohrmann <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;><mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > +1 for DataTable
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Márton Balassi <
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;><mailto:[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > +1 for Max's suggestion.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Maximilian Michels <
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;><mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks for starting the discussion. We should definitely not
> > keep
> > flink-expressions.
> >
> > I'm in favor of DataTable for the DataSet abstraction
> > equivalent.
> > For
> > consistency, the package name should then be flink-table. At
> > first
> > sight, the name seems kind of plain but I think it is quite
> > intuitive
> > because the API enables you to work in a SQL like fashion.
> >
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I think this is a very good suggestion. :-)
> >
> > (There is an associated issue, we shouldn't forget to close:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1623)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>