DanielLeens commented on issue #11364: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/issues/11364#issuecomment-4899080083
Thanks for putting the STIP into a concrete draft. This is now in the right shape for architecture review. Before implementation starts, I think the next revision should make four boundaries more explicit: 1. where this contract should live, especially whether the model belongs in a shared API-facing module versus an engine-private one 2. which fields are connector-reported versus framework-computed, especially `STALLED`, `supportLevel`, and any normalized lag value 3. what phase-1 connectors must provide versus what stays best-effort in the first delivery 4. how this will be exposed without creating backward-compatibility pressure on existing metrics or job-detail APIs I would also keep the first version intentionally small: current progress snapshot + checkpoint/restore visibility is enough for v1. Timeline/history storage can be a later follow-up once the core contract is proven useful. So from my side, this is a reasonable STIP to continue refining. After those boundaries are tightened, implementation PRs will be much easier to review with fewer surprises on API and compatibility. cc @davidzollo -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
