Hi Martijn, As a Scala user, this change would affect me a lot and I'm not looking forward to rewriting my codebase, and it's not even a very large one :)
I'd like to suggest supporting Java 17 as a prerequisite ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-15736). Things like switch expressions and records could simplify the migration quite a bit. Would you consider adding it to the FLIP? On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 10:50 AM Jing Ge <j...@ververica.com> wrote: > Hi Martijn, > > Thanks for bringing this up. It is generally a great idea, so +1. > > Since both scala extension projects mentioned in the FLIP are still very > young and I don't think they will attract more scala developers as Flink > could just because they are external projects. It will be a big issue for > users who have to rewrite their large codebases. Those users should be > aware of the effort from now on and would better not count on those scala > extension projects and prepare their migration plan before Flink 2.0. > > Best regards, > Jing > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 1:59 PM Martijn Visser <martijnvis...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Hi Marton, >> >> You're making a good point, I originally wanted to include already the >> User mailing list to get their feedback but forgot to do so. I'll do some >> more outreach via other channels as well. >> >> @Users of Flink, I've made a proposal to deprecate and remove Scala API >> support in a future version of Flink. Your feedback on this topic is very >> much appreciated. >> >> Regarding the large Scala codebase for Flink, a potential alternative >> could be to have a wrapper for all Java APIs that makes them available as >> Scala APIs. However, this still requires Scala maintainers and I don't >> think that we currently have those in our community. The easiest solution >> for them would be to use the Java APIs directly. Yes it would involve work, >> but we won't actually be able to remove the Scala APIs until Flink 2.0 so >> there's still time for that :) >> >> Best regards, >> >> Martijn >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 1:26 AM Márton Balassi <balassi.mar...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Martjin, >>> >>> Thanks for compiling the FLIP. I agree with the sentiment that Scala >>> poses >>> considerable maintenance overhead and key improvements (like 2.13 or >>> 2.12.8 >>> supports) are hanging stale. With that said before we make this move we >>> should attempt to understand the userbase affected. >>> A quick Slack and user mailing list search does return quite a bit of >>> results for scala (admittedly a cursory look at them suggest that many of >>> them have to do with missing features in Scala that exist in Java or >>> Scala >>> versions). I would love to see some polls on this topic, we could also >>> use >>> the Flink twitter handle to ask the community about this. >>> >>> I am aware of users having large existing Scala codebases for Flink. This >>> move would pose a very large effort on them, as they would need to >>> rewrite >>> much of their existing code. What are the alternatives in your opinion, >>> Martjin? >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 6:22 AM Martijn Visser <martijnvis...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi everyone, >>> > >>> > I would like to open a discussion thread on FLIP-265 Deprecate and >>> remove >>> > Scala API support. Please take a look at >>> > >>> > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-265+Deprecate+and+remove+Scala+API+support >>> > and provide your feedback. >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > >>> > Martijn >>> > https://twitter.com/MartijnVisser82 >>> > https://github.com/MartijnVisser >>> > >>> >>
