Hi Galen, We were aware of the issue and are working on it. StreamingFileSink is a SinkFunction that could not be removed yes as mentioned previously. You can find SinkV1 at [1]
Best regards, Jing [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/blob/4cf2124d71a8dd0595e40f07c2dbcc4c85883b82/flink-core/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/connector/sink/Sink.java#L55 On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 1:59 PM Galen Warren <ga...@cvillewarrens.com.invalid> wrote: > Regarding SinkV1 vs. SinkV2: Is StreamingFileSink a SinkV1-related > interface that is proposed to be removed? In a separate thread, it was > discussed how it's important not to remove StreamingFileSink as long as > this critical issue with SinkV2 is still outstanding -- > https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/FLINK-30238 -- > because of the prospect of data loss when stopping and restarting jobs with > savepoints. > > Thanks, > Galen > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 7:47 AM Leonard Xu <xbjt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, Xintong > > > > > Could you please clarify what exact changes you are proposing to make > on > > > the existing list? > > > - Are you suggesting removing the item "Remove deprecated APIs - > > > SourceFunction / SinkFunction / SinkV1", or are you suggesting > > downgrading > > > it as nice-to-have? > > > > I prefer to remove the item as we cannot deprecate SourceFunction / > > SinkFunction related interfaces in 1.18, thus he 2.0 version would not > > satisfy two minor versions condition and would not remove them as well. > > > > > - You said SinkV2 cannot cover SinkFunction. Then how about SinkV1? Is > it > > > covered by SinkV2? Should it be removed or preserved? > > > > SinkV2 related interfaces covers SinkV1 related interfaces well, and > > SinkV1 related interfaces have been deprecated, I think they can be > removed > > in 2.0 safely. > > > > In a word, my proposal is replace must have item "Remove deprecated APIs > - > > SourceFunction / SinkFunction / SinkV1" with must have item "Remove > > deprecated APIs SinkV1" . > > > > Best, > > Leonard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Xintong > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 4:26 PM Leonard Xu <xbjt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks Xintong for driving this great work! But I’ve to give my > > >> -1(binding) here： > > >> > > >> -1 to mark "deprecat SourceFunction/SinkFunction/Sinkv1" item as must > to > > >> have for release 2.0. > > >> > > >> I do a lot of connector work in the community, and I have two insights > > >> from past experience: > > >> > > >> 1. Many developers reported that it is very difficult to migrate from > > >> SourceFunction to new Source [1]. The migration of existing conenctors > > >> after deprecated SourceFunction is very difficult. Some developers > > (Flavio > > >> Pompermaier) reported that they gave up the migration because it was > too > > >> complicated. I believe it's not a few cases. This means that > deprecating > > >> SourceFunction related interfaces require community contributors to > > reduce > > >> the migration cost before starting the migration work. > > >> > > >> 2. IIRC, the function of SinkV2 cannot currently cover SinkFunction as > > >> described in FLIP-287[2], it means the migration path after deprecate > > >> SinkFunction/Sinkv1 does not exist, thus we cannot mark the related > > >> interfaces of sinkfunction/sinkv1 as deprecated in 1.18. > > >> > > >> Based on these two cognitions, I think we should not mark these > > interfaces > > >> as must to have in 2.0. Maintaining the two sets of source/sink > > interfaces > > >> is not a concern for me, users can choose the interface to implement > > >> according to their energy and needs. > > >> > > >> Btw, some work items in 2.0 are marked as must to have, but no > > contributor > > >> has claimed them yet. I think this is a risk and hope the Release > > Managers > > >> could pay attention to it. > > >> > > >> Thank you all RMs for your work, sorry again for interrupting the vote > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Leonard > > >> > > >> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/sqq26s9rorynr4vx4nhxz3fmmxpgtdqp > > >> [2] > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=240880853 > > >> > > >>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 4:11 PM, Yuan Mei <yuanmei.w...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> As a second thought, I think "Eager State Declaration" is probably > not > > a > > >>> must-have. > > >>> > > >>> I was originally thinking it is a prerequisite for "state querying > for > > >>> disaggregated state management". > > >>> > > >>> Since disaggregated state management itself is not a must-have, > "Eager > > >>> State Declaration" is not as well. We can downgrade it to "nice to > > have" > > >> if > > >>> no objection. > > >>> > > >>> Best > > >>> > > >>> Yuan > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 7:02 PM Jing Ge <j...@ververica.com.invalid> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> +1 > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 12:52 PM Yu Li <car...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> +1 (binding) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks for driving this and great to see us moving forward. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Best Regards, > > >>>>> Yu > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 at 11:59, Feng Wang <wangfeng...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> +1 > > >>>>>> Thanks for driving this, looking forward to the next stage of > flink. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 5:31 PM Xintong Song < > tonysong...@gmail.com> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'd like to start the VOTE for the must-have work items for > release > > >>>> 2.0 > > >>>>>>> [1]. The corresponding discussion thread is [2]. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Please note that once the vote is approved, any changes to the > > >>>>> must-have > > >>>>>>> items (adding / removing must-have items, changing the priority) > > >>>>> requires > > >>>>>>> another vote. Assigning contributors / reviewers, updating > > >>>>> descriptions / > > >>>>>>> progress, changes to nice-to-have items do not require another > > vote. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> The vote will be open until at least July 12, following the > > consensus > > >>>>>>> voting process. Votes of PMC members are binding. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Best, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Xintong > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> [1] > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/2.0+Release > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> [2] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/l3dkdypyrovd3txzodn07lgdwtwvhgk4 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
