Hi Jeyhun,
> > I would also ask to include a sample usage and changes for end-users in the
> > FLIP.
We want to ensure a seamless transition for end-users, minimizing any
disruptions in their current usage of the connector. To achieve this, we will
uphold consistency by maintaining the same interfaces (though deprecated)
within the existing package.
> > Also, in order to ensure the backwards compatibility, do you think at some
> > point we might need to decouple interface and implementations and put only
> > interfaces in flink-connector-jdbc module?
I think flink-connector-jdbc should be only a shade jar, we could use it to
deprecate some current interfaces, extending the new on the new package.. but
that is all..
We propose that the flink-connector-jdbc be solely packaged as a shade jar.
This would enable us to deprecate existing interfaces while introducing the
same interface on new package.
Best
On 2024/05/03 14:08:28 Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
> Hi Boto,
>
> Thanks for driving this FLIP. +1 for it.
>
> I would also ask to include a sample usage and changes for end-users in the
> FLIP.
>
> flink-connector-jdbc: The current module, which will be transformed to
> > shade all other modules and maintain backward compatibility.
>
>
> Also, in order to ensure the backwards compatibility, do you think at some
> point we might need to decouple interface and implementations and put only
> interfaces in flink-connector-jdbc module?
>
> Regards,
> Jeyhun
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 2:56 PM João Boto <eskabe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > > You can now update the derby implementation and the core independently
> > and decide at your own will when to include the new derby in the core?
> > Not really, we are talking about creating modules in the same repository,
> > not about externalizing the database modules. That is, whenever there is a
> > release, both the core and the DBs will be released at the same time.
> >
> > > > For clarity of motivation, could you please add some concrete examples
> > (just a couple) to the FLIP to clarify when this really comes in handy?
> > Added.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > On 2024/04/26 07:59:30 lorenzo.affe...@ververica.com.INVALID wrote:
> > > Hello Joao,
> > > thank your for your proposal, modularity is always welcome :)
> > >
> > > > To maintain clarity and minimize conflicts, we're currently leaning
> > towards maintaining the existing structure, where
> > flink-connector-jdbc-${version}.jar remains shaded for simplicity,
> > encompassing the core functionality and all database-related features
> > within the same JAR.
> > >
> > > I do agree with this approach as the usecase of reading/writing to
> > different DBs could be quite common.
> > >
> > > However, I am missing what would be the concrete advantage in this
> > change for connector maintainability.
> > > I make an example:
> > > You can now update the derby implementation and the core independently
> > and decide at your own will when to include the new derby in the core?
> > >
> > > For clarity of motivation, could you please add some concrete examples
> > (just a couple) to the FLIP to clarify when this really comes in handy?
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > > On Apr 26, 2024 at 04:19 +0200, Muhammet Orazov
> > <mor+fl...@morazow.com.invalid>, wrote:
> > > > Hey João,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for FLIP proposal!
> > > >
> > > > Since proposal is to introduce modules, would it make sense
> > > > to have another module for APIs (flink-jdbc-connector-api)?
> > > >
> > > > For this I would suggest to move all public interfaces (e.g,
> > > > JdbcRowConverter, JdbcConnectionProvider). And even convert
> > > > some classes into interface with their default implementations,
> > > > for example, JdbcSink, JdbcConnectionOptions.
> > > >
> > > > This way users would have clear interfaces to build their own
> > > > JDBC based Flink connectors.
> > > >
> > > > Here I am not suggesting to introduce new interfaces, only
> > > > suggest also to separate the API from the core implementation.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Muhammet
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2024-04-25 08:54, Joao Boto wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to start a discussion on FLIP-449: Reorganization of
> > > > > flink-connector-jdbc [1].
> > > > > As Flink continues to evolve, we've noticed an increasing level of
> > > > > complexity within the JDBC connector.
> > > > > The proposed solution is to address this complexity by separating the
> > > > > core
> > > > > functionality from individual database components, thereby
> > streamlining
> > > > > the
> > > > > structure into distinct modules.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking forward to your feedback and suggestions, thanks.
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Joao Boto
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-449%3A+Reorganization+of+flink-connector-jdbc
> > >
> >
>
