+1 since Java Duration is more common and powerful than Flink Time. For whether to drop scala Duration for parsing duration OptionConfig, I think it's another question and should be discussed in another thread.
Thanks, Zhu Zhu Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> 于2019年8月24日周六 下午4:16写道： > +1, makes sense. BTW, we probably need a FLIP as this is a public API > change. > > On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 8:11 AM SHI Xiaogang <shixiaoga...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > +1 to replace Flink's time with Java's Duration. > > > > Besides, i also suggest to use Java's Instant for "point-in-time". > > It can take care of time units when we calculate Duration between > different > > instants. > > > > Regards, > > Xiaogang > > > > Zili Chen <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2019年8月24日周六 上午10:45写道： > > > > > Hi vino, > > > > > > I agree that it introduces extra complexity to replace Duration(Scala) > > > with Duration(Java) *in Scala code*. We could separate the usage for > each > > > language and use a bridge when necessary. > > > > > > As a matter of fact, Scala concurrent APIs(including Duration) are used > > > more than necessary at least in flink-runtime. Also we even try to make > > > flink-runtime scala free. > > > > > > Best, > > > tison. > > > > > > > > > vino yang <yanghua1...@gmail.com> 于2019年8月24日周六 上午10:05写道： > > > > > > > +1 to replace the Time class provided by Flink with Java's Duration: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Java's Duration has better representation than the Flink's Time > > > class; > > > > - As a built-in Java class, Duration class has a clear advantage > > over > > > > Java's Time class when interacting with other Java APIs and > > > third-party > > > > libraries; > > > > > > > > > > > > But I have reservations about replacing the Duration and FineDuration > > > > classes in scala with the Duration class in Java. Java and Scala have > > > > different types of systems. Currently, Duration (scala) and > > FineDuration > > > > (scala) work well. In addition, this work brings additional > complexity > > > and > > > > cost compared to the gains obtained. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Vino > > > > > > > > Zili Chen <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2019年8月23日周五 下午11:14写道： > > > > > > > > > Hi Stephan, > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea unify usage of time/duration api. We actually > > > > > use at least five different classes for this purposes(see below). > > > > > > > > > > One thing I'd like to pick up is that duration configuration > > > > > in Flink is almost in pattern as "60 s" that fits in the pattern > > > > > parsed by scala.concurrent.duration.Duration. AFAIK Duration > > > > > in Java 8 doesn't support this pattern. However, we can solve > > > > > it by introduce a DurationUtils. > > > > > > > > > > Also to clarify, we now have (correct me if any other) > > > > > > > > > > java.time.Duration > > > > > scala.concurrent.duration.Duration > > > > > scala.concurrent.duration.FiniteDuration > > > > > org.apache.flink.api.common.time.Time > > > > > org.apache.flink.streaming.api.windowing.time.Time > > > > > > > > > > in use. If we'd prefer java.time.Duration, it is worth to consider > > > > > whether we unify all of them into Java's Duration, i.e., Java's > > > > > Duration is the first class time/duration api, while others should > > > > > be converted into or out from it. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > tison. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> 于2019年8月23日周五 下午10:45写道： > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all! > > > > > > > > > > > > Many parts of the code use Flink's "Time" class. The Time really > > is a > > > > > "time > > > > > > interval" or a "Duration". > > > > > > > > > > > > Since Java 8, there is a Java class "Duration" that is nice and > > > > flexible > > > > > to > > > > > > use. > > > > > > I would suggest we start using Java Duration instead and drop > Time > > as > > > > > much > > > > > > as possible in the runtime from now on. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe even drop that class from the API in Flink 2.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
