Thanks Junrui for driving the proposal.

+1 from my side. This FLIP will help to make the configuration clearer for
users.

ps: We should also delete the private field `storage` as its getter and
setter are deleted and it is marked as `@Deprecated`. This is not written
in the FLIP.

Best,
Hang

Yuxin Tan <tanyuxinw...@gmail.com> 于2023年11月3日周五 11:30写道:

> Thanks Junrui for driving the proposal.
>
> +1 for this proposal. I believe this change will enhance the usability of
> Flink configuration for both users and developers, while also ensuring
> consistency across various types of configurations.
>
> Best,
> Yuxin
>
>
> Lijie Wang <wangdachui9...@gmail.com> 于2023年11月3日周五 10:59写道:
>
> > Thanks Junrui for driving this.
> >
> > Making configurations simple and consistent has great benefits for both
> > users and devs. +1 for the proposal.
> >
> > Best,
> > Lijie
> >
> > weijie guo <guoweijieres...@gmail.com> 于2023年11月2日周四 16:49写道:
> >
> > > Thanks Junrui for driving this proposal!
> > >
> > > I believe this is helpful for the new Process Function API. Because we
> > > don't need to move some related class/components from flink-core to a
> > pure
> > > API module (maybe, called flink-core-api) after this. Even though the
> > FLIP
> > > related to new API is in preparation atm, I still want to emphasize our
> > > goal is that user application should no longer depend on these stuff.
> So
> > > I'm + 1 for this proposal.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Weijie
> > >
> > >
> > > Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> 于2023年11月2日周四 16:00写道:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Junrui for creating the FLIP and kicking off this discussion.
> > > >
> > > > The community has been constantly striving to unify and simplify the
> > > > configuration layer of Flink. Some progress has already been made,
> > > > such as FLINK-29379. However, the compatibility of public interfaces
> > > > poses an obstacle to completing the task. The release of Flink 2.0
> > > > presents a great opportunity to accomplish this goal.
> > > >
> > > > +1 for the proposal.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Zhu
> > > >
> > > > Rui Fan <1996fan...@gmail.com> 于2023年11月2日周四 10:27写道:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Junrui for driving this proposal!
> > > > >
> > > > > ConfigOption is easy to use for flink users, easy to manage options
> > > > > for flink platform maintainers, and easy to maintain for flink
> > > developers
> > > > > and flink community.
> > > > >
> > > > > So big +1 for this proposal!
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Rui
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 10:10 AM Junrui Lee <jrlee....@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi devs,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to start a discussion on FLIP-381: Deprecate
> > > configuration
> > > > > > getters/setters that return/set complex Java objects[1].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently, the job configuration in FLINK is spread out across
> > > > different
> > > > > > components, which leads to inconsistencies and confusion. To
> > address
> > > > this
> > > > > > issue, it is necessary to migrate non-ConfigOption complex Java
> > > objects
> > > > > to
> > > > > > use ConfigOption and adopt a single Configuration object to host
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > configuration.
> > > > > > However, there is a significant blocker in implementing this
> > > solution.
> > > > > > These complex Java objects in StreamExecutionEnvironment,
> > > > > CheckpointConfig,
> > > > > > and ExecutionConfig have already been exposed through the public
> > API,
> > > > > > making it challenging to modify the existing implementation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Therefore, I propose to deprecate these Java objects and their
> > > > > > corresponding getter/setter interfaces, ultimately removing them
> in
> > > > > > FLINK-2.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your feedback and thoughts on this proposal are highly
> appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Junrui Lee
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=278464992
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to