Hi Konstantin, I totally agree with making SinkV2 @Public. I just have concerns about deprecating SinkFunction at this point. Dong Lin has raised the blocker issues of migration multiple times in this thread which I think we should address first. I don't know why we rush to deprecate SinkFunction while SourceFunction is still public, but the new Source API is much more stable and production-ready than SinkV2.
Iceberg community raised concerns[1] about the workability and stability of Flink connector APIs. We are hoping any issues with the APIs for Iceberg connector will surface > sooner and get more attention from the Flink community when the connector > is within Flink umbrella rather than in Iceberg repo. The connector externalizing is a big step for building a mechanism to guarantee Flink connector API is stable and workable. The follow-up step should be trying the new APIs in externalized connectors and giving users the confidence to migrate. Best, Jark [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5zqnkt01x2c611brkjmxxnt3bfcgl1b On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 09:53, yuxia <luoyu...@alumni.sjtu.edu.cn> wrote: > Hi Konstantin, > Just FYI, the FileSystemTableSink are still using SinkFunction. > > Best regards, > Yuxia > > ----- 原始邮件 ----- > 发件人: "Dong Lin" <lindon...@gmail.com> > 收件人: "dev" <dev@flink.apache.org> > 抄送: "Jing Ge" <j...@ververica.com>, "Yun Tang" <myas...@live.com> > 发送时间: 星期二, 2023年 2 月 07日 上午 9:41:07 > 主题: Re: [DISCUSS] Promote SinkV2 to @Public and deprecate SinkFunction > > Hi Konstantin, > > Thanks for the reply. Please see my comments inline. > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 9:48 PM Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Steven, > > > > Sink is already deprecated. It was deprecated at the moment where we > > introduced SinkV2. > > > > Hi Jark, Hi Dong, > > > > My understanding is the SinkV2 is a workable interface. The most > important > > connectors have been migrated (Kafka, Filesystem) and more connectors > > (OpenSearch, ElasticSearch, Kinesis) use it successfully. To make SinkV2 > > public, it does not need to have all possible functionality. Public APIs > > can be extended. That's what we do all the time. There will also always > be > > bugs. So, these points can not be categorical blockers to promote the > API. > > > > Right. I believe we all agree that we make SinkV2 @PublicEvolving. The > concern here is whether we can mark SinkFunction as deprecated at this > point. > > > > > > What are the specific issues/tickets that are blocking us? Can we in your > > > > For example, Lijie mentioned earlier in this thread that according to > FLIP-287, > currently the Sink.InitContext still lacks some necessary information to > migrate existing connectors to new sinks. This could be a blocker issue > since this is related to the SinkV2 API design. > > And Yuxia mentioned earlier in this thread that there are bugs such as > FLINK-30238 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-30238> and > FLINK-29459 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-29459> , which > makes it hard to use SinkV2 properly in production. It seems that these > two bugs are created months ago and are still unresolved or even > unassigned. This looks like a clear signal that SinkV2 is not being > actively maintained and used in production. > > > > opinion only deprecate it when every single connector in Apache Flink is > > migrated already? > > > > Technically this is not a hard requirement. But I would suggest that we > should migrate all existing connectors so that we eat our own dogfood and > prove to users that SinkV2 is ready for use in production. > > > > In my opinion it is the time to ask users to the migrate their > connectors. > > More importantly, @Deprecated would signal users not to build new > > connectors on SinkFunction. I would arque its also very misleading to > users > > to not @Deprecated SinkFunction given that is clearly will be deprecated. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > Am Mo., 6. Feb. 2023 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com>: > > > > > I agree with Dong Lin. > > > > > > Oracle explains how to use Deprecate API [1]: > > > > > > You are strongly recommended to use the Javadoc @deprecated tag with > > > > appropriate comments explaining how to use the new API. This ensures > > > > developers will *have a workable migration path from the old API to > the > > > > new API*. > > > > > > > > > From a user's perspective, the workable migration path is very > important. > > > Otherwise, it blurs the semantics of API deprecation. The Flink API's > > > compatibility and stability issues in the past left a bad impression on > > the > > > downstream projects. We should be careful when changing and deprecating > > > APIs, especially when there are known migration gaps. I think it's a > good > > > idea to migrate Flink-owned connectors before marking old API > deprecated. > > > This ensures downstream projects can migrate to new APIs smoothly. > > > > > > Best, > > > Jark > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > > > > https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/javadoc/deprecation/deprecation.html > > > > > > On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 10:01, Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Regarding the discussion on global committer [1] for sinks with > global > > > > transactions, there is no consensus on solving that problem in > SinkV2. > > > Will > > > > it require any breaking change in SinkV2? > > > > > > > > Also will SinkV1 be deprecated too? or it should happen sometime > after > > > > SinkFunction deprecation? > > > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/82bgvlton9olb591bfg2djv0cshj1bxj > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 2:14 AM Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Konstantin, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comment! Please see my comment inline. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Dong > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 2:06 AM Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > sorry for joining the discussion late. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Is there an option to deprecate SinkFunction in Flink 1.17 > while > > > > > leaving > > > > > > SinkV2 @PublicEvolving in Flink 1.17. We then aim to make SinkV2 > > > > @Public > > > > > in > > > > > > and remove SinkFunction in Flink 1.18. @PublicEvolving are > intended > > > for > > > > > > public use. So, I don't see it as a blocker for deprecating > > > > SinkFunction > > > > > > that we have to make SinkV2 @PublicEvovling. For reference this > is > > > the > > > > > > description of @PublicEvovling: > > > > > > > > > > > > /** > > > > > > * Annotation to mark classes and methods for public use, but > with > > > > > > evolving interfaces. > > > > > > * > > > > > > * <p>Classes and methods with this annotation are intended for > > > public > > > > > > use and have stable behavior. > > > > > > * However, their interfaces and signatures are not considered to > > be > > > > > > stable and might be changed > > > > > > * across versions. > > > > > > * > > > > > > * <p>This annotation also excludes methods and classes with > > evolving > > > > > > interfaces / signatures within > > > > > > * classes annotated with {@link Public}. > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marking SinkFunction @Deprecated would already single everyone to > > > move > > > > to > > > > > > SinkV2, which we as a community, I believe, have a strong > interest > > > in. > > > > > Its > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I also believe we all have this strong interest. I just hope > > that > > > > this > > > > > can be done in the best possible way that does not confuse users. > > > > > > > > > > I probably still have the same concern regarding its impact on > users: > > > if > > > > we > > > > > mark an API as deprecated, it effectively means the users of this > API > > > > > should start to migrate to another API (e.g. SinkV2) and we might > > > remove > > > > > this API in the future. However, given that we know there are known > > > > > problems preventing users from doing so, it seems that we are not > > ready > > > > to > > > > > send this message to users right. > > > > > > > > > > If I understand correctly, I guess you are suggesting that by > marking > > > > > SinkFunction as deprecated, we can put higher pressure on Flink > > > > > contributors to update the existing Flink codebase to improve and > use > > > > > SinkV2. > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure this is the right way to use @deprecated, which has a > > > > > particular meaning for its users rather than contributors. And I am > > > also > > > > > not sure we can even pressure contributors of an open-source > project > > > into > > > > > developing a feature (e.g. migrate all existing SinkFunction > > subclasses > > > > to > > > > > SinkV2). IMO, the typical way is for the contributor with > > interest/time > > > > to > > > > > work on the feature, or talk to other contributors whether they are > > > > willing > > > > > to collaborate/work on this, rather than pressuring other > > contributors > > > > into > > > > > working on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > almost comical how long the transition from > > > SourceFurnction/SinkFunction > > > > to > > > > > > Source/Sink takes us. At the same time, we leave ourselves the > > option > > > > to > > > > > to > > > > > > make small changes to SinkV2 if any problems arise during the > > > migration > > > > > of > > > > > > these connector. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, we have a bit of a chicken/egg problem here. The > pressure > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Similar to the reason described above, I am not sure we have a > > > > chicken/egg > > > > > problem here. The issue here is that SinkV2 is not ready and we > have > > a > > > > lot > > > > > of existing SinkFunction that is not migrated by ourselves. We > (Flink > > > > > contributors) probably do not need to mark SinkFunction as > deprecated > > > in > > > > > order to address these issues in our own codebase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users and contributors is not high enough to move away from > > > SinkFunction > > > > as > > > > > > long as its not deprecated, but at the same time we need people > to > > > > > migrate > > > > > > their connectors to see if there are any gaps in SinkV2. I > believe, > > > the > > > > > > combination proposed above could bridge this problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) I don't understand the argument of waiting until some of the > > > > > > implementations are @Public. How can we make the implementations > of > > > the > > > > > > SinkV2 API @Public without making SinkV2 @Public? All public > > methods > > > of > > > > > > SinkV2 are part of every implementation. So to me it actually > seems > > > to > > > > be > > > > > > opposite: in order to make any of the implementation @Public we > > first > > > > > need > > > > > > to make the API @Public. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah I also agree with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Mo., 30. Jan. 2023 um 13:18 Uhr schrieb Dong Lin < > > > > lindon...@gmail.com > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Martijn, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for driving this effort to clean-up the Flink codebase! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea to cleanup Flink codebase to avoid having two > > > Sinks. > > > > On > > > > > > the > > > > > > > other hand, I also thing the concern mentioned by Jing makes > > sense. > > > > In > > > > > > > addition to thinking in terms of the rule proposed in FLIP-197 > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-197%3A+API+stability+graduation+process > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (which > > > > > > > seems to focus mostly on the Flink developers' perspective), it > > > might > > > > > be > > > > > > > useful to also think about the story from users' perspective > and > > > make > > > > > > sure > > > > > > > their concerns can be addressed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Typically, by marking an API as deprecated, we are effectively > > > > telling > > > > > > > users *they should start to migrate to the new API ASAP and we > > > > reserve > > > > > > the > > > > > > > right to remove this API completely in the 1-2 releases*. Then > it > > > > might > > > > > > be > > > > > > > reasonable for users to ask questions such as: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Does SinkV2 public API provides all the functionalities > needed > > > to > > > > > > > migrate my existing code from subclassing SinkFunction to > > > subclassing > > > > > > > SinkV2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Is the amount of migration work reasonable? If yes, why is a > > > class > > > > > > such > > > > > > > as HBaseSinkFunction in Flink's own codebase still depending on > > > > > > > SinkFunction? Maybe Flink developers should eat their own dog > > food > > > > and > > > > > > > migrate (or deprecate) those classes in the Flink codebase > first? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on the discussion in this thread, I am not sure we have > > good > > > > > > answers > > > > > > > to those questions yet. For the 1st question above, the answer > is > > > > *no* > > > > > > > because we already know that the SinkV2 is currently not able > to > > > > > support > > > > > > > migration for JdbcSink. For the 2nd question above, we know > there > > > are > > > > > > many > > > > > > > non-deprecated class in Flink codebase that are still depending > > on > > > > > > SinkV2. > > > > > > > It is probably not nice to users if we tell them to migrate > while > > > we > > > > > know > > > > > > > there are existing issues that can prevent them from doing so > > > easily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to move forward to deprecate SinkV2, I think it will > be > > > > super > > > > > > > useful to first migrate all the connectors managed by Flink > > > community > > > > > > > (including all externalized connectors) to use SinkV2. This > work > > > > won't > > > > > be > > > > > > > wasted since we need to do this anyway. And it will also give > us > > a > > > > > chance > > > > > > > to validate the capabilities of SinkV2 and fix bugs by > ourselves > > as > > > > > much > > > > > > as > > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > Dong > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:52 PM Martijn Visser < > > > > > martijnvis...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While discussing FLIP-281 [1] the discussion also turned to > the > > > > > > > > SinkFunction and the SinkV2 API. For a broader discussion I'm > > > > opening > > > > > > up > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > separate discussion thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As Yun Tang has mentioned in that discussion thread, it would > > be > > > a > > > > > good > > > > > > > > time to deprecate the SinkFunction to avoid the need to > > introduce > > > > new > > > > > > > > functions towards (to be) deprecated APIs. Jing rightfully > > > > mentioned > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > it would be confusing to deprecate the SinkFunction if its > > > > successor > > > > > is > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > yet marked as @Public (it's currently @PublicEvolving). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My proposal would be to promote the SinkV2 API to @public in > > > Flink > > > > > 1.17 > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > mark the SinkFunction as @deprecated in Flink 1.17 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The original Sink interface was introduced in Flink 1.12 with > > > > > FLIP-143 > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > and extended with FLIP-177 in Flink 1.14 [3] and has been > > > improved > > > > on > > > > > > > > further as Sink V2 via FLIP-191 in Flink 1.15 [4]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at the API stability graduation process [5], the fact > > > that > > > > > Sink > > > > > > > V2 > > > > > > > > was introduced in Flink 1.15 would mean that we could > warrant a > > > > > > promotion > > > > > > > > to @public already (given that there have been two releases > > with > > > > 1.15 > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > 1.16 where it was introduced). Combined with the fact that > > SinkV2 > > > > has > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > the result of iteration over the introduction of the original > > > Sink > > > > > API > > > > > > > > since Flink 1.12, I would argue that the promotion is > overdue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we promote the Sink API to @public, I think we should also > > > > > > immediately > > > > > > > > mark the SinkFunction as @deprecated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/l05m6cf8fwkkbpnjtzbg9l2lo40oxzd1 > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-143%3A+Unified+Sink+API > > > > > > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-177%3A+Extend+Sink+API > > > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-191%3A+Extend+unified+Sink+interface+to+support+small+file+compaction > > > > > > > > [5] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-197%3A+API+stability+graduation+process > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > https://twitter.com/snntrable > > > > > > https://github.com/knaufk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > https://twitter.com/snntrable > > https://github.com/knaufk > > >
