+1 (binding). Thanks TP, Jarek, Jens and Jason for the discussion and alignment.
On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 3:26 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (binding) -> Thanks for being receptive to all comments TP / Jason. > > And regarding Jens' point: yes, "naming is difficult". However, at this > stage, this name is just a "codename" because it's "Java only," > "experimental," mostly used internally (except for the package name in > configuration), and lacks a separate installable distribution (it's just a > Python package name). When/If we turn it (hopefully soon) into full-fledged > coordinators - with common APIs and a compatibility strategy—it **might** > get real "coordinator" features; this might get handy. It might also be > easier to "promote it" without migrations, which TP was rightfully > concerned about. > > So, I actually like that it's named "coordinators" now in the Python > package name because it allows for easy future evolution without > unnecessary migration issues. I was far more sceptical about implementing > the new distribution naming schema at this point - because that would > "anchor" us much more. I think our discussion resulted in a good middle > ground: we avoid overcomplicating things (especially the development > process, operational complexity, and intra-compatibility issues), allowing > us to get something "working" quickly, while ensuring we aren't blocked and > have a smooth path to implement the longer-term vision later. > > I think that was a very good discussion and outcome. Thanks again, TP. > Also, thanks to (a bit more silent in this discussion) Jason for being so > flexible. I really appreciate it. I know firsthand how difficult it is when > a bigger vision you have is kind of trimmed-down, and when you see where > you want to go and others seem to "not see it". It forces you to twist and > turn things to not lose the track of the bigger vision, while taking the > first baby step toward it. But my experience is that the end result might > eventually benefit from learnings along the way, so trimming the first > steps is a good thing (even if it's very difficult mentally). I've been > doing it for years in our dev environment. While it generally follows my > initial vision, it's very different now due to incremental steps and > tooling improvements along the way. > > J. > > > On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 10:52 AM Shahar Epstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 (binding), well done TP and Jason. > > > > > > Shahar > > > > On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 10:02 AM Tzu-ping Chung via dev < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I’m calling vote on AIP-108: Java Task SDK and the Language Coordinator > >> Layer > >> AIP-108 Java Task SDK and the Language Coordinator Layer - Airflow - > >> Apache Software Foundation < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/pY4mGQ> > >> cwiki.apache.org <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/pY4mGQ> > >> [image: favicon.ico] <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/pY4mGQ> > >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/pY4mGQ> > >> > >> Discussion thread: > >> lists.apache.org > >> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/gjot4bxj9kygj2fk76kx6tyg8s4hr057> > >> [image: favicon.ico] > >> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/gjot4bxj9kygj2fk76kx6tyg8s4hr057> > >> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/gjot4bxj9kygj2fk76kx6tyg8s4hr057> > >> > >> > >> The vote will run for 5 days until Thursday, 21st May 2026, 07:00 UTC. > >> > >> Everyone is encouraged to vote, but only PMC members and Committers' > >> votes are considered binding. > >> > >> Please vote accordingly > >> > >> [ ] +1 Approve > >> [ ] +0 no opinion > >> [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > >> > >> Consider this my +1 vote (binding) > >> > >> TP > >> > > >
