I added the user list as they may have vested interest here and and hopefully can contribute
Few suggestions: 1. Data-Driven Decision Making: Return to the core metrics—analyze usage trends, performance benchmarks, and the actual impact on businesses that rely on GraphX. Objectivity can be restored by letting data speak louder than opinions so to speak. 2. Broaden the Discussion: Engage more stakeholders from diverse backgrounds (especially spark users) to bring in new perspectives and counterbalance the more vocal but potentially narrow interests of core maintainers or open-source contributors. 3. Define Clear Criteria for Decision Making: Agree on a set of objective criteria by which the project’s future will be judged. These could include market demand, contribution levels, maintenance costs, alternative solutions, and alignment with the overall Spark ecosystem goals. Some have already been covered. 4. Timely Conclusion of Discussions: Set a timeline for making a decision. Long, open-ended discussions tend to lose focus. Putting deadlines forces participants to focus on key issues and prevents endless debates. 5. Borrowing from commercial settings, it is often necessary for a strong leadership team to step in and make the final decision after considering the input. When the objectivity of discussions starts to wane, leadership needs to cut through the round discussions and steer towards action based on business and technical realities. HTH Mich Talebzadeh, Architect | Data Engineer | Data Science | Financial Crime PhD <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy> Imperial College London <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_College_London> London, United Kingdom view my Linkedin profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mich-talebzadeh-ph-d-5205b2/> https://en.everybodywiki.com/Mich_Talebzadeh *Disclaimer:* The information provided is correct to the best of my knowledge but of course cannot be guaranteed . It is essential to note that, as with any advice, quote "one test result is worth one-thousand expert opinions (Werner <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun>Von Braun <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun>)". On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 at 06:26, Ángel <angel.alvarez.pas...@gmail.com> wrote: > I completely agree with everyone here. I don’t think the issue is > deprecating it; to me, the problem lies in not providing a new and better > solution for handling graphs in Spark. In the past, I used GraphX via > GraphFrames for record linkage, and I found it both useful and effective. > Is there any discussion about a potential replacement? > > I’d be willing to help maintain GraphX, though I don’t have previous > experience with maintaining open-source projects. All I can promise is good > intentions, willingness to learn and lots of energy and passion. Is that > enough? > > Btw, what's your take on this? > > > - > > GraphX will be deprecated in favor of a new graphing component, > SparkGraph, based on Cypher > <https://neo4j.com/developer/cypher-query-language/>, a much richer > graph language than previously offered by GraphX. > > > > https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data-analytics/introducing-spark-3-and-hadoop-3-on-dataproc-image-version-2-0 > > El sáb, 5 oct 2024 a las 2:17, Mark Hamstra (<markhams...@gmail.com>) > escribió: > >> As I wrote to Holden privately, I might well change my vote to be in >> favor of a deprecation label combined with some effective means of >> communicating that this doesn't mean the end for GraphX if interested >> contributors come forward to rescue it. I don't like either the idea >> of keeping unmaintained code and public APIs around (especially if >> there are problems with them) or the idea of removing Spark >> functionality just because no one has contributed to it for a while. A >> naked deprecation label feels somewhat drastic and pre-emptive to me. >> I don't expect that GraphX will be the last part of Spark to run the >> risk of death through neglect, and I think we need an effective means >> of encouraging resuscitation that a deprecation label on its own does >> not provide. On the other hand, if no one really is willing to come to >> the aid of GraphX or other neglected functionality given adequate >> warning of possible removal, I'm not then opposed to the usual >> deprecation and removal process. >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 4:10 PM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > This is a reasonable discussion, but maybe the more practical point is: >> are you sure you want to block this unilaterally? This effectively makes a >> decision that GraphX cannot be removed for a long while. I'd understand it >> more if we had an active maintainer and/or active user proposing to veto, >> but my understanding is this is just a proposal to block this on behalf of >> some users, someone else who might do some work and hasn't to date for some >> reason. Add to that the fact that the 'pro' arguments all seem to be >> arguments for working on GraphFrames, and I find this somewhat drastic. >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 5:23 PM Mark Hamstra <markhams...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> "You can't say nothing is removable until there are no users." >> >> >> >> That is not what I am saying. Rather, I am countering what others seem >> >> to be suggesting: There are no users and no interest, therefore we can >> >> and should deprecate. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 3:10 PM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > I could flip this argument around. More strongly, not being >> deprecated means "won't be removed" and likewise implies support and >> development. I don't think either of the latter have been true for years. >> What suggests this will change? A todo list is not going to do anything, >> IMHO. >> >> > >> >> > I'm also concerned about the cost of that, which I have observed. >> GraphX PRs are almost certainly not going to be reviewed because of its >> state. Deprecation both communicates that reality, and leaves an option >> open, whereas not deprecating forecloses that option for a while. >> >> > >> >> > I don't think the question is, does anyone use it? because anyone >> can continue to use it -- in Spark 3.x for sure, and in 4.x if not removed. >> >> > You can't say nothing is removable until there are no users. >> >> > >> >> > Also, why would GraphFrames not be the logical home of this going >> forward anyway? which I think is the subtext. >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 4:56 PM Mark Hamstra <markhams...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm -1(*) because, while it technically means "might be removed in >> the >> >> >> future", I think developers and users are more prone to interpret >> >> >> something being marked as deprecated as "very likely will be removed >> >> >> in the future, so don't depend on this or waste your time >> contributing >> >> >> to its further development." I don't think the latter is what we >> want >> >> >> just because something hasn't been updated meaningfully in a while. >> >> >> There have been How To articles for GraphX and Graph Frames posted >> in >> >> >> the not too distant past, and the Google Search trend shows a pretty >> >> >> steady level of interest, not a decline to zero, so I don't think >> that >> >> >> it is accurate to declare that there is no use or interest in >> GraphX. >> >> >> >> >> >> Unless retaining GraphX is imposing significant costs on continuing >> >> >> Spark development, I can't support deprecating GraphX. I can support >> >> >> encouraging GraphX and Graph Frames development through something >> like >> >> >> a To Do list or document of "What we'd like to see in the way of >> >> >> further development of Spark's graph processing capabilities" -- >> i.e., >> >> >> things that encourage and support new contributions to address any >> >> >> shortcomings in Spark's graph processing, not things that discourage >> >> >> contributions and use in the way that I believe simply declaring >> >> >> GraphX to be deprecated would. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 11:04 AM Holden Karau < >> holden.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Since we're getting close to cutting a 4.0 branch I'd like to >> float the idea of officially deprecating Graph X. What that would mean (to >> me) is we would update the docs to indicate that Graph X is deprecated and >> it's APIs may be removed at anytime in the future. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Alternatively, we could mark it as "unmaintained and in search of >> maintainers" with a note that if no maintainers are found, we may remove it >> in a future minor version. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Looking at the source graph X, I don't see any meaningful active >> development going back over three years*. There is even a thread on user@ >> from 2017 asking if graph X is maintained anymore, with no response from >> the developers. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Now I'm open to the idea that GraphX is stable and "works as is" >> and simply doesn't require modifications but given the user thread I'm a >> little concerned here about bringing this API with us into Spark 4 if we >> don't have anyone signed up to maintain it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > * Excluding globally applied changes >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> > Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau >> >> >> > Fight Health Insurance: https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com/ >> >> >> > Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.): >> https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9 >> >> >> > YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau >> >> >> > Pronouns: she/her >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >>
