Also +1 to what David has written. But it doesn't mean we should be waiting indefinitely to deprecate SourceFunction.
Best, Piotrek niedz., 5 cze 2022 o 16:46 Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > +1 to David's point. > > Usually, when we deprecate some interfaces, we should point users to use > the recommended alternatives. > However, implementing the new Source interface for some simple scenarios is > too challenging and complex. > We also found it isn't easy to push the internal connector to upgrade to > the new Source because > "FLIP-27 are hard to understand, while SourceFunction is easy". > > +1 to make implementing a simple Source easier before deprecating > SourceFunction. > > Best, > Jark > > > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 at 07:29, Jingsong Lee <lzljs3620...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 to David and Ingo. > > > > Before deprecate and remove SourceFunction, we should have some easier > APIs > > to wrap new Source, the cost to write a new Source is too high now. > > > > > > > > Ingo Bürk <airbla...@apache.org>于2022年6月5日 周日05:32写道： > > > > > I +1 everything David said. The new Source API raised the complexity > > > significantly. It's great to have such a rich, powerful API that can do > > > everything, but in the process we lost the ability to onboard people to > > > the APIs. > > > > > > > > > Best > > > Ingo > > > > > > On 04.06.22 21:21, David Anderson wrote: > > > > I'm in favor of this, but I think we need to make it easier to > > implement > > > > data generators and test sources. As things stand in 1.15, unless you > > can > > > > be satisfied with using a NumberSequenceSource followed by a map, > > things > > > > get quite complicated. I looked into reworking the data generators > used > > > in > > > > the training exercises, and got discouraged by the amount of work > > > involved. > > > > (The sources used in the training want to be unbounded, and need > > > > watermarking in the sources, which means that using > > NumberSequenceSource > > > > isn't an option.) > > > > > > > > I think the proposed deprecation will be better received if it can be > > > > accompanied by something that makes implementing a simple Source > easier > > > > than it is now. People are continuing to implement new > SourceFunctions > > > > because the interfaces defined by FLIP-27 are hard to understand, > while > > > > SourceFunction is easy. Alex, I believe you were looking into > > > implementing > > > > an easier-to-use building block that could be used in situations like > > > this. > > > > Can we get something like that in place first? > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 4:52 PM Jing Ge <j...@ververica.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> Thanks Alex for driving this! > > > >> > > > >> +1 To give the Flink developers, especially Connector developers the > > > clear > > > >> signal that the new Source API is recommended according to FLIP-27, > we > > > >> should mark them as deprecated. > > > >> > > > >> There are some open questions to discuss: > > > >> > > > >> 1. Do we need to mark all subinterfaces/subclasses as deprecated? > e.g. > > > >> FromElementsFunction, etc. there are many. What are the > replacements? > > > >> 2. Do we need to mark all subclasses that have replacement as > > > deprecated? > > > >> e.g. ExternallyInducedSource whose replacement class, if I am not > > > mistaken, > > > >> ExternallyInducedSourceReader is @Experimental > > > >> 3. Do we need to mark all related test utility classes as > deprecated? > > > >> > > > >> I think it might make sense to create an umbrella ticket to cover > all > > of > > > >> these with the following process: > > > >> > > > >> 1. Mark SourceFunction as deprecated asap. > > > >> 2. Mark subinterfaces and subclasses as deprecated, if there are > > > graduated > > > >> replacements. Good example is that KafkaSource replaced > KafkaConsumer > > > which > > > >> has been marked as deprecated. > > > >> 3. Do not mark subinterfaces and subclasses as deprecated, if > > > replacement > > > >> classes are still experimental, check if it is time to graduate > them. > > > After > > > >> graduation, go to step 2. It might take a while for graduation. > > > >> 4. Do not mark subinterfaces and subclasses as deprecated, if the > > > >> replacement classes are experimental and are too young to graduate. > We > > > have > > > >> to wait. But in this case we could create new tickets under the > > umbrella > > > >> ticket. > > > >> 5. Do not mark subinterfaces and subclasses as deprecated, if there > is > > > no > > > >> replacement at all. We have to create new tickets and wait until the > > new > > > >> implementation has been done and graduated. It will take a longer > > time, > > > >> roughly 1,5 years. > > > >> 6. For test classes, we could follow the same rule. But I think for > > some > > > >> cases, we could consider doing the replacement directly without > going > > > >> through the deprecation phase. > > > >> > > > >> When we look back on all of these, we can realize it is a big epic > > (even > > > >> bigger than an epic). It needs someone to drive it and keep focus on > > it > > > >> continuously with support from the community and push the > development > > > >> towards the new Source API of FLIP-27. > > > >> > > > >> If we could have consensus for this, Alex and I could create the > > > umbrella > > > >> ticket to kick it off. > > > >> > > > >> Best regards, > > > >> Jing > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 3:54 PM Alexander Fedulov < > > > alexan...@ververica.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi everyone, > > > >>> > > > >>> I would like to start the discussion about marking > > SourceFunction-based > > > >>> interfaces as deprecated. With the FLIP-27 APIs becoming the new > > > >> standard, > > > >>> the old ones have to be eventually phased out. Although this state > is > > > >> well > > > >>> known within the community and no new connectors based on the old > > > >>> interfaces can be accepted into the project, the footprint of > > > >>> SourceFunction in the user code still keeps growing (primarily for > > data > > > >>> generators and test utilities). I believe it is best to mark > > > >> SourceFunction > > > >>> as deprecated as soon as possible. What do you think? > > > >>> > > > >>> Best, > > > >>> Alexander Fedulov > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
