+1 for deprecating and pointing people to Gelly On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 10 Mar 2015, at 22:02, Vasiliki Kalavri <vasilikikala...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like your opinion on whether we should deprecate the Spargel API > in > > 0.9. > > > > Gelly doesn't depend on Spargel, it actually contains it -- we have > copied > > the relevant classes over. I think it would be a good idea to deprecate > > Spargel in 0.9, so that we can inform existing Spargel users that we'll > > eventually remove it. > > +1. I think it's OK as we want all Graph API users to go against Gelly in > the future. I don't even think that many people are using Spargel as we > never really promoted it heavily. > > > Also, I think the fact that we have 2 Graph APIs in the documentation > might > > be a bit confusing for newcomers. One might wonder why do we have them > both > > and when shall they use one over the other? > > > > It might be a good idea to add a note in the Spargel guide that would > > suggest to use Gelly instead and a corresponding note in the beginning of > > the Gelly guide to explain that Spargel is part of Gelly now. Or maybe a > > "Gelly or Spargel?" section. What do you think? > > +1, but I wouldn't hint to that prominently in the beginning. I think a > section about Spargel at the end, where you explain that it was our initial > take at graph processing and a link the respective (old) docs should be > fine for people who have already used it.
