The alternative could also be to use a different argument than "no one
uses it", e.g., we are fine with removing it at the cost of friction for
some users because there are better alternatives.
On 10/28/2020 10:46 AM, Kostas Kloudas wrote:
I think that the mailing lists is the best we can do and I would say
that they seem to be working pretty well (e.g. the recent Mesos
discussion).
Of course they are not perfect but the alternative would be to never
remove anything user facing until the next major release, which I find
pretty strict.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 10:04 AM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote:
If the conclusion is that we shouldn't remove it if _anyone_ is using
it, then we cannot remove it because the user ML obviously does not
reach all users.
On 10/28/2020 9:28 AM, Kostas Kloudas wrote:
Hi all,
I am bringing the up again to see if there are any users actively
using the BucketingSink.
So far, if I am not mistaken (and really sorry if I forgot anything),
it is only a discussion between devs about the potential problems of
removing it. I totally understand Chesnay's concern about not
providing compatibility with the StreamingFileSink (SFS) and if there
are any users, then we should not remove it without trying to find a
solution for them.
But if there are no users then I would still propose to remove the
module, given that I am not aware of any efforts to provide
compatibility with the SFS any time soon.
The reasons for removing it also include the facts that we do not
actively maintain it and we do not add new features. As for potential
missing features in the SFS compared to the BucketingSink that was
mentioned before, I am not aware of any fundamental limitations and
even if there are, I would assume that the solution is not to direct
the users to a deprecated sink but rather try to increase the
functionality of the actively maintained one.
Please keep in mind that the BucketingSink is deprecated since FLINK
1.9 and there is a new File Sink that is coming as part of FLIP-143
[1].
Again, if there are any active users who cannot migrate easily, then
we cannot remove it before trying to provide a smooth migration path.
Thanks,
Kostas
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-143%3A+Unified+Sink+API
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 4:36 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> wrote:
@Seth: Earlier in this discussion it was said that the BucketingSink
would not be usable in 1.12 .
On 10/16/2020 4:25 PM, Seth Wiesman wrote:
+1 It has been deprecated for some time and the StreamingFileSink has
stabalized with a large number of formats and features.
Plus, the bucketing sink only implements a small number of stable
interfaces[1]. I would expect users to continue to use the bucketing sink
from the 1.11 release with future versions for some time.
Seth
https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/2ff3b771cbb091e1f43686dd8e176cea6d435501/flink-connectors/flink-connector-filesystem/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/streaming/connectors/fs/bucketing/BucketingSink.java#L170-L172
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 2:57 PM Kostas Kloudas <kklou...@gmail.com> wrote:
@Arvid Heise I also do not remember exactly what were all the
problems. The fact that we added some more bulk formats to the
streaming file sink definitely reduced the non-supported features. In
addition, the latest discussion I found on the topic was [1] and the
conclusion of that discussion seems to be to remove it.
Currently, I cannot find any obvious reason why keeping the
BucketingSink, apart from the fact that we do not have a migration
plan unfortunately. This is why I posted this to dev@ and user@.
Cheers,
Kostas
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r799be74658bc7e169238cc8c1e479e961a9e85ccea19089290940ff0%40%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 8:03 AM Arvid Heise <ar...@ververica.com> wrote:
I remember this conversation popping up a few times already and I'm in
general a big fan of removing BucketingSink.
However, until now there were a few features lacking in StreamingFileSink
that are present in BucketingSink and that are being actively used (I
can't
exactly remember them now, but I can look it up if everyone else is also
suffering from bad memory). Did we manage to add them in the meantime? If
not, then it feels rushed to remove it at this point.
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 2:33 PM Kostas Kloudas <kklou...@gmail.com>
wrote:
@Chesnay Schepler Off the top of my head, I cannot find an easy way
to migrate from the BucketingSink to the StreamingFileSink. It may be
possible but it will require some effort because the logic would be
"read the old state, commit it, and start fresh with the
StreamingFileSink."
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 2:09 PM Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
wrote:
On 13.10.20 14:01, David Anderson wrote:
I thought this was waiting on FLIP-46 -- Graceful Shutdown
Handling --
and
in fact, the StreamingFileSink is mentioned in that FLIP as a
motivating
use case.
Ah yes, I see FLIP-147 as a more general replacement for FLIP-46.
Thanks
for the reminder, we should close FLIP-46 now with an explanatory
message to avoid confusion.
--
Arvid Heise | Senior Java Developer
<https://www.ververica.com/>
Follow us @VervericaData
--
Join Flink Forward <https://flink-forward.org/> - The Apache Flink
Conference
Stream Processing | Event Driven | Real Time
--
Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
--
Ververica GmbH
Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
Managing Directors: Timothy Alexander Steinert, Yip Park Tung Jason, Ji
(Toni) Cheng
