+1 to drop ES 2.x - unsure about 5.x (makes sense to get more user input for that one).
@Itamar - if you would be interested in contributing a "universal" or "cross version" ES connector, that could be very interesting. Do you know if there are known performance issues or feature restrictions with that approach? @dawid what do you think about that? On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:28 AM Danny Chan <yuzhao....@gmail.com> wrote: > 5.x seems to have a lot of users, is the 6.x completely compatible with > 5.x ~ > > Best, > Danny Chan > 在 2020年2月10日 +0800 PM9:45，Dawid Wysakowicz <dwysakow...@apache.org>，写道： > > Hi all, > > > > As described in this https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-11720 > > ticket our elasticsearch 5.x connector does not work out of the box on > > some systems and requires a version bump. This also happens for our e2e. > > We cannot bump the version in es 5.x connector, because 5.x connector > > shares a common class with 2.x that uses an API that was replaced in 5.2. > > > > Both versions are already long eol: https://www.elastic.co/support/eol > > > > I suggest to drop both connectors 5.x and 2.x. If it is too much to drop > > both of them, I would strongly suggest dropping at least 2.x connector > > and update the 5.x line to a working es client module. > > > > What do you think? Should we drop both versions? Drop only the 2.x > > connector? Or keep them both? > > > > Best, > > > > Dawid > > > > >
