+1 to Leonard and Galen and Jing. About Source and Sink. We're still missing quite a bit of work, including functionality, including ease of use, including bug fixes, and I'm not sure we'll be completely done by 2.0. Until that's done, we won't be in a position to clean up the old APIs.
Best, Jingsong On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:41 AM yuxia <luoyu...@alumni.sjtu.edu.cn> wrote: > > Hi，Xintong. > Sorry to disturb the voting. I just found an email[1] about DataSet API from > flink-user-zh channel. And I think it's not just a single case according to > my observation. > > Remove DataSet is a must have item in release-2.0. But as the user email > said, if we remove DataSet, how users can implement Sort/PartitionBy, etc as > they did with DataSet? > Do we will also provide similar api in datastream or some other thing before > we remove DataSet? > Btw, as far as I see, with regarding to replcaing DataSet with Datastream, > Datastream are missing many API. I think it may well take much effort to > fully cover the missing api. > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/syjmt8f74gh8ok3z4lhgt95zl4dzn168 > > Best regards, > Yuxia > > ----- 原始邮件 ----- > 发件人: "Jing Ge" <j...@ververica.com.INVALID> > 收件人: "dev" <dev@flink.apache.org> > 发送时间: 星期三, 2023年 7 月 12日 上午 1:23:40 > 主题: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.0 must-have work items > > agree with what Leonard said. There are actually more issues wrt the new > Source and SinkV2[1] > > Speaking of must-have vs nice-to-have, I think it depends on the priority. > If removing them has higher priority, we should keep related tasks as > must-have and make sure enough effort will be put to solve those issues and > therefore be able to remove those APIs. > > Best regards, > Jing > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/90qc9nrlzf0vbvg92klzp9ftxxc43nbk > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 10:26 AM 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 > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > >
