[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-30454?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17649345#comment-17649345
 ] 

Gunnar Morling edited comment on FLINK-30454 at 12/19/22 2:16 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------------

[~rmetzger], curious about your thoughts on that compatibility question.


was (Author: gunnar.morling):
[~rmetzger] , curious about your thoughts on that compatibility question.

> Inconsistent class hierarchy in TaskIOMetricGroup
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: FLINK-30454
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-30454
>             Project: Flink
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Runtime / Metrics
>            Reporter: Gunnar Morling
>            Priority: Major
>
> I noticed an interesting issue when trying to compile the flink-runtime 
> module with Eclipse (same for VSCode): the _private_ inner class 
> {{org.apache.flink.runtime.metrics.groups.TaskIOMetricGroup.SizeGauge}} has 
> yet another _public_ inner class, {{SizeSupplier}}. The public method 
> {{org.apache.flink.runtime.metrics.groups.TaskIOMetricGroup.registerMailboxSizeSupplier(SizeSupplier<Integer>)}}
>  has a parameter of that type. The invocation of this method in 
> {{org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.StreamTask.StreamTask(Environment, 
> TimerService, UncaughtExceptionHandler, StreamTaskActionExecutor, 
> TaskMailbox)}} can be compiled with the javac compiler of the JDK but fails 
> to compile with ecj:
> {code}
> The type TaskIOMetricGroup.SizeGauge from the descriptor computed for the 
> target context is not visible here.  
> {code}
> I tend to believe that the behavior of Eclipse's compiler is the correct one. 
> After all, you couldn't explicitly reference the {{SizeSupplier}} type 
> either. One possible fix would be to promote {{SizeSupplier}} to the same 
> level as {{SizeGauge}}. This would be source-compatible but not 
> binary-compatible, though. I.e. code compiled against the earlier signature 
> of {{registerMailboxSizeSupplier()}} would be broken with a 
> {{NoSuchMethodError}}. Depending on whether {{registerMailboxSizeSupplier()}} 
> are expected in client code or not, this may or may not be acceptable. 
> Another fix would be to make {{SizeGauge}} public. I think that's the change 
> I'd do. Curious what other folks here think.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

Reply via email to