Hi Xintong, By compatibility discussion do you mean the "[DISCUSS] FLIP-321: Introduce an API deprecation process" thread [1]?
I am also curious to know if the rationale behind this new API has been previously discussed on the mailing list. Do we have a list of shortcomings in the current DataStream API that it tries to resolve? How does the current ProcessFunction functionality fit into the picture? Will it be kept as is or subsumed by new API? [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/vmhzv8fcw2b33pqxp43486owrxbkd5x9 Best, Alex On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 14:33, Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The ProcessFunction API item is giving me the most headaches because it's > > very unclear what it actually entails; like is it an entirely separate > API > > to DataStream (sounds like it is!) or an extension of DataStream. How > much > > will it share the internals with DataStream etc.; how does it relate to > the > > Table API (w.r.t. switching APIs / what Table API uses underneath). > > > > I totally understand your confusion. We started planning this after kicking > off the release 2.0, so there's still a lot to be explored and the plan > keeps changing. > > > - In the beginning, we planned to do an in-place refactor of DataStream > API, until the API migration period is proposed. > - Then we want to make it an entirely separate API to DataStream, and > listed as a must-have for release 2.0 so that we can remove DataStream > once > it's ready. > - However, depending on the outcome of the API compatibility discussion > [1], we may not be able to remove DataStream in 2.0 anyway, which means > we > might need to re-evaluate the necessity of this item for 2.0. > > I'd say we wait a bit longer for the compatibility discussion [1] and > decide the priority for this item afterwards. > > > Best, > > Xintong > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@flink.apache.org > > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 6:00 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > by-and-large I'm quite happy with the list of items. > > > > I'm curious as to why the "Disaggregated State Management" item is marked > > as a must-have; will it require changes that break something? What > prevents > > it from being added in 2.1? > > > > We may want to update the Java 17 item to "Make Java 17 the default, drop > > Java 8/11". Maybe even split it into a must-have "Drop Java 8" and a > > nice-to-have "Drop Java 11"? > > > > "Move Calcite rules from Scala to Java": I would hope that this would be > > an entirely internal change, and could thus be an incremental process > > independent of major releases. > > What is the actual scale of this item; how much are we actually > re-writing? > > > > "Add MetricGroup#getLogicalScope": I'd raise this to a must-have; i think > > I marked it down as nice-to-have only because it depends on another item. > > > > The ProcessFunction API item is giving me the most headaches because it's > > very unclear what it actually entails; like is it an entirely separate > API > > to DataStream (sounds like it is!) or an extension of DataStream. How > much > > will it share the internals with DataStream etc.; how does it relate to > the > > Table API (w.r.t. switching APIs / what Table API uses underneath). > > > > There are a few items I added as ideas which don't have a priority yet; > > would love to get some feedback on those. > > > > On 21/06/2023 08:41, Xintong Song wrote: > > > > Hi devs, > > > > As previously discussed in [1], we had been collecting work item > proposals > > for the 2.0 release until June 15th, on the wiki page [2]. > > > > - As we have passed the due date, I'd like to kindly remind everyone > *not > > to add / remove items directly on the wiki page*. If needed, please > post > > in this thread or reach out to the release managers instead. > > - I've reached out to some folks for clarifications about their > > proposals. Some of them mentioned that they can not yet tell whether > we > > should do an item or not, and would need more time / discussions to > make > > the decision. So I added a new symbol for items whose priorities are > `TBD`. > > > > Now it's time to collaboratively decide a minimum set of must-have items. > > I've gone through the entire list of proposed items, and found most of > them > > make quite much sense. So I think an online sync might not be necessary > for > > this. I'd like to go with this DISCUSS thread, where everyone can comment > > on how they think the list can be improved, followed by a VOTE to > formally > > make the decision. > > > > Any feedback and opinions, including but not limited to the following > > aspects, will be appreciated. > > > > - Important items that are missing from the list > > - Concerns regarding the listed items or their priorities > > > > Looking forward to your feedback. > > > > Best, > > > > Xintong > > > > > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/list?dev@flink.apache.org:lte=1M:release%202.0%20status%20updates > > > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/2.0+Release > > > > > > >
