Totally agree with it. +1
Best Mattison On Apr 6, 2023, 10:53 +0800, Devin Bost <devin.b...@gmail.com>, wrote: > +1 since it can be pulled back up in git history if someone decides to do > something with it to improve it at a later time. > > I also agree that it's a pain to maintain, and I don't know anyone using > it. I've gone through some of those code paths, and I was concerned about > divergence anyway. > > - Devin > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023, 5:40 PM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> wrote: > > > If the code isn't being used or maintained, I support removing it. The > > code will be available in the git history in case someone decides to > > resurrect it. > > > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:14 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Yunze, > > > > > > > > Il Mar 4 Apr 2023, 09:57 Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid> ha > > scritto: > > > > > > > > > > If the flaky tests were the only concern, I think we can just > > > > > > disable > > > > > > these tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > My concern is not about the the flaky tests but a out maintenance of > > > > dead > > > > code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whatever, this config in `ServiceConfiguration` has > > > > > > existed for a long time, though when it was introduced, the PIP rule > > > > > > was not clear so there is no PIP for it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it would work well in production, given the amount of > > > > flakyness in the tests and the fact that nobody ever asked questions > > about > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is why I propose to drop the code now in Pulsar 3.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Yunze > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 3:09 PM Gavin gao <gaozhang...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, I totally agree with this idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> 于2023年4月4日周二 14:47写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > It has been a long time that we have in the Pulsar code a > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > experimental Dispatcher implementation named > > > > > > > > > > StreamingDispatcher. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/9056 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many flaky tests about that feature and I believe > > > > > > > > > > that it > > > > > > > > > > has never been used in Production by anyone, because it > > > > > > > > > > happened a > > few > > > > > > > > > > times that we did some changes in the regular Dispatcher and > > > > > > > > > > introduced bugs on the StreamingDispacther (usually > > > > > > > > > > manifested as > > > > > > > > > > flaky tests) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose to drop the StreamingDispatcher code for Pulsar > > > > > > > > > > 3.0. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we need a PIP for this, it is an experimental > > > > > > > > > > code > > that > > > > > > > > > > was never delivered as a production ready feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If anyone is aware of users please chime in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If anyone wants to sponsor that feature and objects in > > > > > > > > > > removing > > this > > > > > > > > > > dead code (that we still have to maintain) please help us in > > > > > > > > > > completing the feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On paper it is a very appealing feature, and I am > > > > > > > > > > disappointed in > > > > > > dropping > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, this is dead code that we have to > > > > > > > > > > maintain with > > zero > > > > > > > > > > benefit > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
