Thanks for clarifying the state of things. +1 to deprecating once we have parity. If the v2 ones are better, perhaps a blog post would be a good way to advertise (and document) their existence and advantages too.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:15 PM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: > The reason why most people are using AWSv1 IOs is probably because they are > in Beam since 2017 instead of just added in the last year which is the > case of > the AWSv2 ones. > > Alexey mentions that maintaining both versions is becoming painful and I > would > like to expand on that because we have now duplicated work for new > features, for > example someone contributing some small improvement does it in one of the > two > versions and we try to encourage them to do it in both and general > confusion and > lots of extra work is going into keeping them aligned. And for more > complex IOs > like Kinesis this might prove harder in the future. > > Notice that the migration path is incremental because users can have both > Amazon > SDKs in the same classpath without conflicts. And Alexey's proposal is > about > deprecating AWSv1 IOs to reduce the maintenance burden, not removing them > from > the codebase. This could help to raise awareness about the AWSv2 IOs so > users > migrate and diminish the extra overhead for contributors and maintainers. > > One minor comment to the proposal is that if we proceed with this plan we > should > deprecate a v1 IO ONLY when we have full feature parity in the v2 version. > I think we don't have a replacement for AWSv1 S3 IO so that one should not > be > deprecated. > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 6:07 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> > wrote: > > > > The 10x-100x ratio looks like an answer right there about > (non-)suitability for deprecation. The new question would be *why* people > are using the v1 APIs. Is it because it was the original, or that it's been > around longer, or it has more features? > > >
