indeed! I missed that part. Thanks for the hint! Best regards, Jing
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 6:02 AM Zakelly Lan <zakelly....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jing, > > The deprecation and removal of original APIs is beyond the scope of > current FLIP, but I do add/highlight such information under "Compatibility, > Deprecation, and Migration Plan" section. > > > Best, > Zakelly > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 9:18 AM Yunfeng Zhou <flink.zhouyunf...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Zakelly, >> >> Thanks for your responses. I agree with it that we can keep the design >> as it is for now and see if others have any better ideas for these >> questions. >> >> Best, >> Yunfeng >> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 5:23 PM Zakelly Lan <zakelly....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Xuannan, >> > >> > Thanks for your comments, I modified the FLIP accordingly. >> > >> > Hi Yunfeng, >> > >> > Thanks for sharing your opinions! >> > >> >> Could you provide some hint on use cases where users need to mix sync >> >> and async state operations in spite of the performance regression? >> >> This information might help address our concerns on design. If the >> >> mixed usage is simply something not recommended, I would prefer to >> >> prohibit such usage from API. >> > >> > In fact, there is no scenario where users MUST use the sync APIs, but >> it is much easier to use for those who are not familiar with asynchronous >> programming. If they want to migrate their job from Flink 1.x to 2.0 >> leveraging some benefits from asynchronous APIs, they may try the mixed >> usage. It is not user-friendly to directly throw exceptions at runtime, I >> think our better approach is to warn users and recommend avoiding this. I >> added an example in this FLIP. >> > >> > Well, I do not insist on allowing mixed usage of APIs if others reach >> an agreement that we won't support that . I think the most important is to >> keep the API easy to use and understand, thus I propose a unified state >> declaration and explicit meaning in method name. WDYT? >> > >> >> Sorry I missed the new sink API. I do still think that it would be >> >> better to make the package name more informative, and ".v2." does not >> >> contain information for new Flink users who did not know the v1 of >> >> state API. Unlike internal implementation and performance >> >> optimization, API will hardly be compromised for now and updated in >> >> future, so I still suggest we improve the package name now if >> >> possible. But given the existing practice of sink v2 and >> >> AbstractStreamOperatorV2, the current package name would be acceptable >> >> to me if other reviewers of this FLIP agrees on it. >> > >> > Actually, I don't like 'v2' either. So if there is another good name, >> I'd be happy to apply. This is a compromise to the current situation. Maybe >> we could refine this after the retirement of original state APIs. >> > >> > >> > Thanks & Best, >> > Zakelly >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 1:42 PM Yunfeng Zhou < >> flink.zhouyunf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Zakelly, >> >> >> >> Thanks for the quick response! >> >> >> >> > Actually splitting APIs into two sets ... warn them in runtime. >> >> >> >> Could you provide some hint on use cases where users need to mix sync >> >> and async state operations in spite of the performance regression? >> >> This information might help address our concerns on design. If the >> >> mixed usage is simply something not recommended, I would prefer to >> >> prohibit such usage from API. >> >> >> >> > In fact ... .sink2`. >> >> >> >> Sorry I missed the new sink API. I do still think that it would be >> >> better to make the package name more informative, and ".v2." does not >> >> contain information for new Flink users who did not know the v1 of >> >> state API. Unlike internal implementation and performance >> >> optimization, API will hardly be compromised for now and updated in >> >> future, so I still suggest we improve the package name now if >> >> possible. But given the existing practice of sink v2 and >> >> AbstractStreamOperatorV2, the current package name would be acceptable >> >> to me if other reviewers of this FLIP agrees on it. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Yunfeng >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 5:27 PM Zakelly Lan <zakelly....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Hi Yunfeng, >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for your comments! >> >> > >> >> > +1 for JingGe's suggestion to introduce an AsyncState API, instead of >> >> > > having both get() and asyncGet() in the same State class. As a >> >> > > supplement to its benefits, this design could help avoid having >> users >> >> > > to use sync and async API in a mixed way (unless they create both a >> >> > > State and an AsyncState from the same state descriptor), which is >> >> > > supposed to bring suboptimal performance according to the FLIP's >> >> > > description. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Actually splitting APIs into two sets of classes also brings some >> >> > difficulties. In this case, users must explicitly define their usage >> before >> >> > actually doing state access. It is a little strange that the user can >> >> > define a sync and an async version of State with the same name, >> while they >> >> > cannot allocate two async States with the same name. >> >> > Another reason for distinguishing API by their method name instead >> of class >> >> > name is that users typically use the State instances to access state >> but >> >> > forget their type/class. For example: >> >> > ``` >> >> > SyncState a = getState(xxx); >> >> > AsyncState b = getAsyncState(xxx); >> >> > //... >> >> > a.update(1); >> >> > b.update(1); >> >> > ``` >> >> > Users are likely to think there is no difference between the >> `a.update(1)` >> >> > and `b.update(1)`, since they may forget the type for `a` and `b`. >> Thus I >> >> > proposed to distinguish the behavior in method names. >> >> > As for the suboptimal performance with mixed usage of sync and >> async, my >> >> > proposal is to warn them in runtime. >> >> > >> >> > I noticed that the FLIP proposes to place the newly introduced API in >> >> > > the package "org.apache.flink.api.common.state.v2", which seems a >> >> > > little strange to me as there has not been such a naming pattern >> >> > > ".v2." for packages in Flink. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > In fact, there are some similar existing patterns, like >> >> > `org.apache.flink.streaming.api.functions.sink.v2` and >> >> > `org.apache.flink.streaming.api.connector.sink2`. >> >> > >> >> > I would suggest discussing this topic >> >> > > with the main authors of Datastream V2, like Weijie Guo, so that >> the >> >> > > newly introduced APIs from both sides comply with a unified naming >> >> > > style. >> >> > >> >> > I'm afraid we are facing a different situation with the Datastream >> V2. For >> >> > total reconstruction of Datastream API, it is big enough to build a >> >> > seperate module and keep good package names. While for state APIs, we >> >> > should stay in the flink-core(-api) module alongside with other >> >> > apis, currently I tend to compromise at the expense of naming style. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Looking forward to hearing from you again! >> >> > >> >> > Thanks & Best, >> >> > Zakelly >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 4:20 PM Yunfeng Zhou < >> flink.zhouyunf...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Hi Zakelly, >> >> > > >> >> > > Thanks for the proposal! The structure of the Async API generally >> >> > > looks good to me. Some comments on the details of the design are as >> >> > > follows. >> >> > > >> >> > > +1 for JingGe's suggestion to introduce an AsyncState API, instead >> of >> >> > > having both get() and asyncGet() in the same State class. As a >> >> > > supplement to its benefits, this design could help avoid having >> users >> >> > > to use sync and async API in a mixed way (unless they create both a >> >> > > State and an AsyncState from the same state descriptor), which is >> >> > > supposed to bring suboptimal performance according to the FLIP's >> >> > > description. >> >> > > >> >> > > I noticed that the FLIP proposes to place the newly introduced API >> in >> >> > > the package "org.apache.flink.api.common.state.v2", which seems a >> >> > > little strange to me as there has not been such a naming pattern >> >> > > ".v2." for packages in Flink. I would suggest discussing this topic >> >> > > with the main authors of Datastream V2, like Weijie Guo, so that >> the >> >> > > newly introduced APIs from both sides comply with a unified naming >> >> > > style. If we reach an agreement on the first comment, my personal >> idea >> >> > > is that we can place the AsyncState interfaces to >> >> > > "org.apache.flink.api.common.state.async", and the existing state >> APIs >> >> > > to "org.apache.flink.api.common.state" or >> >> > > "org.apache.flink.api.common.state.sync". >> >> > > >> >> > > Best regards, >> >> > > Yunfeng Zhou >> >> > > >> >> > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 4:48 PM Zakelly Lan <zakelly....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Hi devs, >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I'd like to start a discussion on a sub-FLIP of FLIP-423: >> Disaggregated >> >> > > > State Storage and Management[1], which is a joint work of Yuan >> Mei, >> >> > > Zakelly >> >> > > > Lan, Jinzhong Li, Hangxiang Yu, Yanfei Lei and Feng Wang: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > - FLIP-424: Asynchronous State APIs [2] >> >> > > > >> >> > > > This FLIP introduces new APIs for asynchronous state access. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Please make sure you have read the FLIP-423[1] to know the whole >> story, >> >> > > and >> >> > > > we'll discuss the details of FLIP-424[2] under this mail. For the >> >> > > > discussion of overall architecture or topics related with >> multiple >> >> > > > sub-FLIPs, please post in the previous mail[3]. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Looking forward to hearing from you! >> >> > > > >> >> > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/R4p3EQ >> >> > > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/SYp3EQ >> >> > > > [3] >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/ct8smn6g9y0b8730z7rp9zfpnwmj8vf0 >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Best, >> >> > > > Zakelly >> >> > > >> >
