Hi Zakelly, +1 for option 1. I prefer to minimize unnecessary additional development and discussions due to internal code relocations and to avoid imposing migration costs on users.
Best regards, Junrui Zakelly Lan <zakelly....@gmail.com> 于2024年2月28日周三 14:46写道： > Hi Lincoln, > > Given that we have finished the testing for 1.19, I agree it is better not > merge this into 1.19. Thanks for RMs' attention! > > Hi Chesney and Junrui, > > Thanks for your advice. My original intention is to move the class as well > as change the package to make it clean. But it involves much more effort. > Here are several options we have: > > 1. Move CheckpointingMode to flink-core and keep the same package. No > more deprecation and API changes. But it will leave a > 'org.apache.flink.streaming.api' package in flink-core. > 2. Introduce new CheckpointingMode in package > 'org.apache.flink.core.execution' and deprecate the old one. Deprecate > the > corresponding getter/setter of 'CheckpointConfig' and introduce new ones > with a similar but different name (e.g. set/getCheckpointMode). We will > discuss the removal of those deprecation later in 2.x. > 3. Based on 1, move CheckpointingMode to package > 'org.apache.flink.core.execution' in 2.0. This is a breaking change that > needs more discussion. > > Both ways work. I'm slightly inclined to option 1, or option 3 if we all > agree, since the new getter/setter may also bring in confusions thus we > cannot make the API purely clean. WDYT? > > > Best, > Zakelly > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:14 AM Junrui Lee <jrlee....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Zakelly, > > > > I agree with Chesnay's response. I would suggest that during the process > of > > moving CheckpointingMode from the flink-streaming-java module to the > > flink-core module, we should keep the package name unchanged. This > approach > > would be completely transparent to users. In fact, this practice should > be > > applicable to many of our desired moves from flink-streaming-java to > > higher-level modules, such as flink-runtime and flink-core. > > > > Best, > > Junrui > > > > Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> 于2024年2月28日周三 05:18写道： > > > > > Moving classes (== keep the same package) to a module higher up in the > > > dependency tree should not be a breaking change and can imo be done > > > anytime without any risk to users. > > > > > > On 27/02/2024 17:01, Lincoln Lee wrote: > > > > Hi Zakelly, > > > > > > > > Thanks for letting us 1.19 RMs know about this! > > > > > > > > This change has been discussed during today's release sync meeting, > we > > > > suggest not merge it into 1.19. > > > > We can continue discussing the removal in 2.x separately. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Lincoln Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > Hangxiang Yu <master...@gmail.com> 于2024年2月27日周二 11:28写道： > > > > > > > >> Hi, Zakelly. > > > >> Thanks for driving this. > > > >> Moving this class to flink-core makes sense to me which could make > the > > > code > > > >> path and configs clearer. > > > >> It's marked as @Public from 1.0 and 1.20 should be the next > long-term > > > >> version, so 1.19 should have been a suitable version to do it. > > > >> And also look forward to thoughts of other developers/RMs since 1.19 > > is > > > >> currently under a feature freeze status. > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 6:42 PM Zakelly Lan <zakelly....@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi devs, > > > >>> > > > >>> When working on the FLIP-406[1], I realized that moving all options > > of > > > >>> ExecutionCheckpointingOptions(flink-streaming-java) to > > > >>> CheckpointingOptions(flink-core) depends on relocating the > > > >>> enum CheckpointingMode(flink-streaming-java) to flink-core module. > > > >> However, > > > >>> the CheckpointingMode is annotated as @Public and used by > datastream > > > api > > > >>> like 'CheckpointConfig#setCheckpointingMode'. So I'd like to start > a > > > >>> discussion on moving the CheckpointingMode to flink-core. It is in > a > > > >> little > > > >>> bit of a hurry if we want the old enum to be entirely removed in > > Flink > > > >> 2.x > > > >>> series, since the deprecation should be shipped in the upcoming > Flink > > > >> 1.19. > > > >>> I suggest not creating a dedicated FLIP and treating this as a > > sub-task > > > >> of > > > >>> FLIP-406. > > > >>> > > > >>> I prepared a minimal change of providing new APIs and deprecating > the > > > old > > > >>> ones[2], which could be merged to 1.19 if we agree to do so. > > > >>> > > > >>> Looking forward to your thoughts! Also cc RMs of 1.19 about this. > > > >>> > > > >>> [1] > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=284789560 > > > >>> [2] > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/flink/commit/9bdd237d0322df8853f1b9e6ae658f77b9175237 > > > >>> Best, > > > >>> Zakelly > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Best, > > > >> Hangxiang. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
