Re: [DISCUSS] Connector Externalization Retrospective

2024-06-13 Thread Danny Cranmer
Thanks all for the feedback. @David > have a wizard / utility so the user inputs which Flink level they want and which connectors; the utility knows the compatibility matrix and downloads the appropriate bundles. My colleagues developed a Maven plugin [1] that performs static checks. Something l

Re: [DISCUSS] Connector Externalization Retrospective

2024-06-11 Thread Thomas Weise
Thanks for bringing this discussion back. When we decided to decouple the connectors, we already discussed that we will only realize the full benefit when the connectors actually become independent from the Flink minor releases. Until that happens we have a ton of extra work but limited gain. Base

Re: [DISCUSS] Connector Externalization Retrospective

2024-06-11 Thread Chesnay Schepler
On 10/06/2024 18:25, Danny Cranmer wrote: This would mean we would usually not need to release a new connector version per Flink version, assuming there are no breaking changes. We technically can't do this because we don't provide binary compatibility across minor versions. That's the entire re

Re: [DISCUSS] Connector Externalization Retrospective

2024-06-11 Thread Aleksandr Pilipenko
Hi Danny, Thank you for bringing this up. I agree with points made by Ahmed, the split into different repositories for connectors/connector groups adds flexibility to evolve connectors without affecting other connectors. I am also in favor of dropping the Flink version component, although this wi

Re: [DISCUSS] Connector Externalization Retrospective

2024-06-11 Thread Muhammet Orazov
Hello Danny, Thanks for the starting the discussion. -1 for mono-repo, and -+1 for dropping Flink version. I have mixed opinion with dropping the Flink version. Usually, large production migrations happen on Flink versions and users want also naturally update the connectors compatible for that

Re: [DISCUSS] Connector Externalization Retrospective

2024-06-11 Thread Ahmed Hamdy
Hi Danny, Thanks for bringing this up, I might haven't driven a connector release myself but I echo the pain and delay in releases for adding Flink version support. I am not really with the mono-repo approach for the following reasons 1- We will lose the flexibility we currently have for connectors

Re: [DISCUSS] Connector Externalization Retrospective

2024-06-11 Thread Sergey Nuyanzin
Thanks for starting this discussion Danny I will put my 5 cents here >From one side yes, support of new Flink release takes time as it was mentioned above However from another side most of the connectors (main/master branches) supported Flink 1.19 even before it was released, same for 1.20 since

Re: [DISCUSS] Connector Externalization Retrospective

2024-06-10 Thread Xintong Song
Thanks for bringing this up, Danny. This is indeed an important issue that the community needs to improve on. Personally, I think a mono-repo might not be a bad idea, if we apply different rules for the connector releases. To be specific: - flink-connectors 1.19.x contains all connectors that are

Re: [DISCUSS] Connector Externalization Retrospective

2024-06-10 Thread David Radley
Hi Danny, I think your proposal is a good one. This is the approach that we took with the Egeria project, firstly taking the connectors out of the main repo, then connectors having their own versions that incremented organically rather then tied to the core release. Blue sky thinking - I wonder