[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-30454?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17649365#comment-17649365 ]
Robert Metzger commented on FLINK-30454: ---------------------------------------- I'm pretty sure these are not public classes. We use the @Public / @PublicEvolving / @Internal annotations to mark interface visibility in Flink. The TaskIOMetricGroup-stuff is, in my understanding anyways internal. > 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:java} > 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)