Yes, my opinion is that we shouldn't declare the Gelly API frozen yet. We can reconsider when we're closer to the 1.0 release, but if possible, I would give it some more time.
-V. On 10 November 2015 at 21:06, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > I think no component should be forced to be stable. It should be an > individual decision for each component, and in some cases even for > individual classes. > > @Vasia If you think Gelly should not be declared interface-frozen, then > this is a good point to raise and this should definitely be reflected. > There is no point in declaring certain APIs as frozen when we are not yet > confident they have converged. > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri < > vasilikikala...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > Hi Robert, > > > > thanks for bringing this up! > > > > I generally like the idea, but I wouldn't rush to annotate the Gelly > > classes yet. Gelly hasn't had that many users and I'm quite sure we'll > find > > things to improve as it gets more exposure. > > TBH, I think it's quite unfair to force Gelly (also e.g. ML, Table) to a > > "1.0" status (from an API stability point of view) since they're really > > young compared to the other Flink APIs. > > > > Cheers, > > Vasia. > > On Nov 10, 2015 8:04 PM, "Robert Metzger" <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > I would like to bring this discussion back to your attention as we seem > > to > > > approach the 1.0 release of Flink. > > > > > > My suggestion back in January was to annotate all classes, but I think > > > it'll be more feasible to just annotate public classes. > > > So how about adding an annotation @PublicInterface > > > > > > For @PublicInterface, I would annotate classes such as: DataSet, > > > DataStream, ExecutionEnvironment, InputFormat, MapFunction, FileSystems > > but > > > also Gelly for example. > > > > > > I would not annotate as public components such as ML, Storm > > compatibility, > > > internals from runtime, yarn, optimizer. > > > > > > > > > From a tooling perspective, I've looked into different maven plugins > and > > > java libraries and I found https://github.com/siom79/japicmp to be the > > > closest to our needs. I actually opened a pull request to the project > to > > > allow inclusion/exclusion of classes based on annotations. Lets hope it > > > gets merged. > > > > > > Does everybody agree with adding just the @PublicInterface annotation? > > > > > > Note that I'll add the annotation on a class-level, making the entire > > class > > > either public or private (from a stability point of view). If we need a > > > more fine-grained annotation, we have to add a second @PrivateInterface > > > annotation which we'll only apply to certain methods. > > > > > > The next step is that I'm going to open a pull request with all classes > > > annotated that I consider public. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Henry Saputra < > henry.sapu...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I like the idea. But would love to have different name for the > > > > "LimitedPrivate" to make it easier to distinguish. > > > > How about "Module" or "Package" ? > > > > > > > > - Henry > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > I think in Hadoop they use LimitedPrivate for the different > > components > > > of > > > > > the project. > > > > > For example LimitedPrivate("yarn"). > > > > > Here is a very good documentation on the topic: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://hadoop.apache.org/docs/stable/hadoop-project-dist/hadoop-common/InterfaceClassification.html > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Alexander Alexandrov < > > > > > alexander.s.alexand...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I don't get the difference between Private and LimitedPrivate, but > > > > >> otherwise seems like quite a nice idea. > > > > >> > > > > >> It will be also good if we can agree upon what these tags actually > > > mean > > > > and > > > > >> add this meaning to the documentation. > > > > >> > > > > >> 2015-01-27 15:46 GMT+01:00 Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org>: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Hadoop has annotations for tagging the stability and audience of > > > > classes > > > > >> > and methods. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Through that, you can have @InterfaceAudience.Public, Private, > > > > >> > LimitedPrivate > > > > >> > and also @InterfaceStability.Evolving, Unstable, and Stable. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I guess there are tools which allow to automatically check if > > > > interfaces, > > > > >> > which are marked as Stable have been changed between releases > (or > > by > > > > pull > > > > >> > requests). > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I think such annotations are crucial if we want to guarantee > > > interface > > > > >> > stability between releases. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > What do you think? Should we add those annotations? Which one > > would > > > > you > > > > >> > like to add? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Robert > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
