Hi,

I also think it is valuable and reasonable to keep the split/select APIs.
They are very convenient and widely used in our platform. I think they are
also used in other users' jobs.
If the community has doubts about this, IMHO, it would be better to start a
user survey.

Best,
Vino

SHI Xiaogang <shixiaoga...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月17日周一 上午11:55写道:

> Hi Xingcan,
>
> Thanks for bringing it up for discusson.
>
> I agree with you that we should not deprecate the split/select methods.
> Their semantics are very clear and they are widely adopted by Flink users.
> We should fix these problems instead of simply deprecating the methods.
>
> Regards,
> Xiaogang
>
> Xingcan Cui <xingc...@gmail.com> 于2019年6月15日周六 下午4:13写道:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Recently, I noticed that the split/select methods in DataStream API have
> > been marked as deprecated since 1.7.2 and 1.8.0 (the related JIRA issue
> > FLINK-11084 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11084>).
> >
> > Although the two methods can be replaced by the more powerful side output
> > feature[1], I still doubt whether we should really remove them in the
> > future.
> >
> > 1. From semantics, the split/select is the reverse operation to the union
> > transformation. Without them, the DataStream API seems to be missing a
> > piece.
> >
> > 2. From accessibility, the side output only works for process functions,
> > which means it forces the user to dive into a lower API.
> >
> > According to FLINK-11084 <
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11084>, there exist some
> > problems with the current implementation of the two methods. Maybe we
> > should fix the problems and re-active them again. Or if they really need
> to
> > be deprecated, we should at least mark the corresponding documentation
> for
> > that : )
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Best,
> > Xingcan
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-master/dev/stream/side_output.html
> > <
> >
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs-master/dev/stream/side_output.html
> > >
>

Reply via email to