Since the user provides backendVersion, here are some possible levels of things to add in expand() based on that (these are extra niceties beyond the agreed number of releases to remove)
- WARN for backendVersion < n - reject for backendVersion < n with opt-in pipeline option to keep it working one more version (gets their attention and indicates urgency) - reject completely Kenn On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 2:26 AM Etienne Chauchot <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > it's been 3 weeks since the survey on ES versions the users use. > > The survey received very few responses: only 9 responses for now (multiple > versions possible of course). The responses are the following: > > ES2: 0 clients, ES5: 1, ES6: 5, ES7: 8 > > It tends to go toward a drop of ES2 support but for now it is still not > very representative. > > I'm cross-posting to @users to let you know that I'm closing the survey > within 1 or 2 weeks. So please respond if you're using ESIO. > > Best > > Etienne > On 13/02/2020 12:37, Etienne Chauchot wrote: > > Hi Cham, thanks for your comments ! > > I just sent an email to user ML with a survey link to count ES uses per > version: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rc8185afb8af86a2a032909c13f569e18bd89e75a5839894d5b5d4082%40%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E > > Best > > Etienne > On 10/02/2020 19:46, Chamikara Jayalath wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:13 AM Etienne Chauchot <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> please see my comments inline >> On 06/02/2020 16:24, Alexey Romanenko wrote: >> >> Please, see my comments inline. >> >> On 6 Feb 2020, at 10:50, Etienne Chauchot <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 1. regarding version support: ES v2 is no more maintained by Elastic >>>> since 2018/02 so we plan to remove it from the IO. In the past we already >>>> retired versions (like spark 1.6 for instance). >>>> >>>> >>> My only concern here is that there might be users who use the existing >>> module who might not be able to easily upgrade the Beam version if we >>> remove it. But given that V2 is 5 versions behind the latest release this >>> might be OK. >>> >> >> It seems we have a consensus on this. >> I think there should be another general discussion on the long term >> support of our prefered tool IO modules. >> >> => yes, consensus, let's drop ESV2 >> >> We had (and still have) a similar problem with KafkaIO to support >> different versions of Kafka, especially very old version 0.9. We raised >> this question on user@ and it appears that there are users who for some >> reasons still use old Kafka versions. So, before dropping a support of any >> ES versions, I’d suggest to ask it user@ and see if any people will be >> affected by this. >> >> Yes we can do a survey among users but the question is, should we support >> an ES version that is no more supported by Elastic themselves ? >> > > +1 for asking in the user list. I guess this is more about whether users > need this specific version that we hope to drop support for. Whether we > need to support unsupported versions is a more generic question that should > prob. be addressed in the dev list. (and I personally don't think we should > unless there's a large enough user base for a given version). > > 2. regarding the user: the aim is to unlock some new features (listed by >>>> Ludovic) and give the user more flexibility on his request. For that, it >>>> requires to use high level java ES client in place of the low level REST >>>> client (that was used because it is the only one compatible with all ES >>>> versions). We plan to replace the API (json document in and out) by more >>>> complete standard ES objects that contain de request logic (insert/update, >>>> doc routing etc...) and the data. There are already IOs like SpannerIO that >>>> use similar objects in input PCollection rather than pure POJOs. >>>> >>>> >>> Won't this be a breaking change for all users ? IMO using POJOs in >>> PCollections is safer since we have to worry about changes to the >>> underlying client library API. Exception would be when underlying client >>> library offers a backwards compatibility guarantee that we can rely on for >>> the foreseeable future (for example, BQ TableRow). >>> >> >> Agreed but actually, there will be POJOs in order to abstract >> Elasticsearch's version support. The following third point explains this. >> >> => indeed it will be a breaking change, hence this email to get a >> consensus on that. Also I think our wrappers of ES request objects will >> offer a backward compatible as the underlying objects >> >> I just want to remind that according to what we agreed some time ago on >> dev@ (at least, for IOs), all breaking user API changes have to be added >> along with deprecation of old API that could be removed after 3 consecutive >> Beam releases. In this case, users will have a time to move to new API >> smoothly. >> >> We are more discussing the target architecture of the new module here but >> the process of deprecation is important to recall, I agree. When I say DTOs >> backward compatible above I mean between per-version sub-modules inside the >> new module. Anyway, sure, for some time, both modules (the old REST-based >> that supports v2-7 and the new that supports v5-7) will cohabit and the old >> one will receive the deprecation annotations. >> > > +1 for supporting both versions for at least three minor versions to give > users time to migrate. Also, we should try to produce a warning for users > who use the deprecated versions. > > Thanks, > Cham > > >> Best >> >> Etienne >> >> >> >>
