Thanks for the input everyone! If no objections, I will open an issue for deprecating the Spargel API tomorrow.
Cheers, V. On 11 March 2015 at 15:59, Fabian Hueske <fhue...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for deprecating > > 2015-03-11 14:11 GMT+01:00 Kostas Tzoumas <ktzou...@apache.org>: > > > +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. > > >
