I agree with Dong Lin. Oracle explains how to use Deprecate API [1]:
You are strongly recommended to use the Javadoc @deprecated tag with > appropriate comments explaining how to use the new API. This ensures > developers will *have a workable migration path from the old API to the > new API*. >From a user's perspective, the workable migration path is very important. Otherwise, it blurs the semantics of API deprecation. The Flink API's compatibility and stability issues in the past left a bad impression on the downstream projects. We should be careful when changing and deprecating APIs, especially when there are known migration gaps. I think it's a good idea to migrate Flink-owned connectors before marking old API deprecated. This ensures downstream projects can migrate to new APIs smoothly. Best, Jark [1]: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/javadoc/deprecation/deprecation.html On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 10:01, Steven Wu <stevenz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding the discussion on global committer [1] for sinks with global > transactions, there is no consensus on solving that problem in SinkV2. Will > it require any breaking change in SinkV2? > > Also will SinkV1 be deprecated too? or it should happen sometime after > SinkFunction deprecation? > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/82bgvlton9olb591bfg2djv0cshj1bxj > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 2:14 AM Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Konstantin, > > > > Thanks for the comment! Please see my comment inline. > > > > Cheers, > > Dong > > > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 2:06 AM Konstantin Knauf <kna...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > sorry for joining the discussion late. > > > > > > 1) Is there an option to deprecate SinkFunction in Flink 1.17 while > > leaving > > > SinkV2 @PublicEvolving in Flink 1.17. We then aim to make SinkV2 > @Public > > in > > > and remove SinkFunction in Flink 1.18. @PublicEvolving are intended for > > > public use. So, I don't see it as a blocker for deprecating > SinkFunction > > > that we have to make SinkV2 @PublicEvovling. For reference this is the > > > description of @PublicEvovling: > > > > > > /** > > > * Annotation to mark classes and methods for public use, but with > > > evolving interfaces. > > > * > > > * <p>Classes and methods with this annotation are intended for public > > > use and have stable behavior. > > > * However, their interfaces and signatures are not considered to be > > > stable and might be changed > > > * across versions. > > > * > > > * <p>This annotation also excludes methods and classes with evolving > > > interfaces / signatures within > > > * classes annotated with {@link Public}. > > > */ > > > > > > > > > Marking SinkFunction @Deprecated would already single everyone to move > to > > > SinkV2, which we as a community, I believe, have a strong interest in. > > Its > > > > > > > Yes, I also believe we all have this strong interest. I just hope that > this > > can be done in the best possible way that does not confuse users. > > > > I probably still have the same concern regarding its impact on users: if > we > > mark an API as deprecated, it effectively means the users of this API > > should start to migrate to another API (e.g. SinkV2) and we might remove > > this API in the future. However, given that we know there are known > > problems preventing users from doing so, it seems that we are not ready > to > > send this message to users right. > > > > If I understand correctly, I guess you are suggesting that by marking > > SinkFunction as deprecated, we can put higher pressure on Flink > > contributors to update the existing Flink codebase to improve and use > > SinkV2. > > > > I am not sure this is the right way to use @deprecated, which has a > > particular meaning for its users rather than contributors. And I am also > > not sure we can even pressure contributors of an open-source project into > > developing a feature (e.g. migrate all existing SinkFunction subclasses > to > > SinkV2). IMO, the typical way is for the contributor with interest/time > to > > work on the feature, or talk to other contributors whether they are > willing > > to collaborate/work on this, rather than pressuring other contributors > into > > working on this. > > > > > > almost comical how long the transition from SourceFurnction/SinkFunction > to > > > Source/Sink takes us. At the same time, we leave ourselves the option > to > > to > > > make small changes to SinkV2 if any problems arise during the migration > > of > > > these connector. > > > > > > I think, we have a bit of a chicken/egg problem here. The pressure for > > > > > > > Similar to the reason described above, I am not sure we have a > chicken/egg > > problem here. The issue here is that SinkV2 is not ready and we have a > lot > > of existing SinkFunction that is not migrated by ourselves. We (Flink > > contributors) probably do not need to mark SinkFunction as deprecated in > > order to address these issues in our own codebase. > > > > > > users and contributors is not high enough to move away from SinkFunction > as > > > long as its not deprecated, but at the same time we need people to > > migrate > > > their connectors to see if there are any gaps in SinkV2. I believe, the > > > combination proposed above could bridge this problem. > > > > > > 2) I don't understand the argument of waiting until some of the > > > implementations are @Public. How can we make the implementations of the > > > SinkV2 API @Public without making SinkV2 @Public? All public methods of > > > SinkV2 are part of every implementation. So to me it actually seems to > be > > > opposite: in order to make any of the implementation @Public we first > > need > > > to make the API @Public. > > > > > > > Yeah I also agree with you. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > Am Mo., 30. Jan. 2023 um 13:18 Uhr schrieb Dong Lin < > lindon...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > Hi Martijn, > > > > > > > > Thanks for driving this effort to clean-up the Flink codebase! > > > > > > > > I like the idea to cleanup Flink codebase to avoid having two Sinks. > On > > > the > > > > other hand, I also thing the concern mentioned by Jing makes sense. > In > > > > addition to thinking in terms of the rule proposed in FLIP-197 > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-197%3A+API+stability+graduation+process > > > > > > > > > (which > > > > seems to focus mostly on the Flink developers' perspective), it might > > be > > > > useful to also think about the story from users' perspective and make > > > sure > > > > their concerns can be addressed. > > > > > > > > Typically, by marking an API as deprecated, we are effectively > telling > > > > users *they should start to migrate to the new API ASAP and we > reserve > > > the > > > > right to remove this API completely in the 1-2 releases*. Then it > might > > > be > > > > reasonable for users to ask questions such as: > > > > > > > > 1) Does SinkV2 public API provides all the functionalities needed to > > > > migrate my existing code from subclassing SinkFunction to subclassing > > > > SinkV2? > > > > > > > > 2) Is the amount of migration work reasonable? If yes, why is a class > > > such > > > > as HBaseSinkFunction in Flink's own codebase still depending on > > > > SinkFunction? Maybe Flink developers should eat their own dog food > and > > > > migrate (or deprecate) those classes in the Flink codebase first? > > > > > > > > Based on the discussion in this thread, I am not sure we have good > > > answers > > > > to those questions yet. For the 1st question above, the answer is > *no* > > > > because we already know that the SinkV2 is currently not able to > > support > > > > migration for JdbcSink. For the 2nd question above, we know there are > > > many > > > > non-deprecated class in Flink codebase that are still depending on > > > SinkV2. > > > > It is probably not nice to users if we tell them to migrate while we > > know > > > > there are existing issues that can prevent them from doing so easily. > > > > > > > > In order to move forward to deprecate SinkV2, I think it will be > super > > > > useful to first migrate all the connectors managed by Flink community > > > > (including all externalized connectors) to use SinkV2. This work > won't > > be > > > > wasted since we need to do this anyway. And it will also give us a > > chance > > > > to validate the capabilities of SinkV2 and fix bugs by ourselves as > > much > > > as > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Dong > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 6:52 PM Martijn Visser < > > martijnvis...@apache.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > While discussing FLIP-281 [1] the discussion also turned to the > > > > > SinkFunction and the SinkV2 API. For a broader discussion I'm > opening > > > up > > > > a > > > > > separate discussion thread. > > > > > > > > > > As Yun Tang has mentioned in that discussion thread, it would be a > > good > > > > > time to deprecate the SinkFunction to avoid the need to introduce > new > > > > > functions towards (to be) deprecated APIs. Jing rightfully > mentioned > > > that > > > > > it would be confusing to deprecate the SinkFunction if its > successor > > is > > > > not > > > > > yet marked as @Public (it's currently @PublicEvolving). > > > > > > > > > > My proposal would be to promote the SinkV2 API to @public in Flink > > 1.17 > > > > and > > > > > mark the SinkFunction as @deprecated in Flink 1.17 > > > > > > > > > > The original Sink interface was introduced in Flink 1.12 with > > FLIP-143 > > > > [2] > > > > > and extended with FLIP-177 in Flink 1.14 [3] and has been improved > on > > > > > further as Sink V2 via FLIP-191 in Flink 1.15 [4]. > > > > > > > > > > Looking at the API stability graduation process [5], the fact that > > Sink > > > > V2 > > > > > was introduced in Flink 1.15 would mean that we could warrant a > > > promotion > > > > > to @public already (given that there have been two releases with > 1.15 > > > and > > > > > 1.16 where it was introduced). Combined with the fact that SinkV2 > has > > > > been > > > > > the result of iteration over the introduction of the original Sink > > API > > > > > since Flink 1.12, I would argue that the promotion is overdue. > > > > > > > > > > If we promote the Sink API to @public, I think we should also > > > immediately > > > > > mark the SinkFunction as @deprecated. > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread/l05m6cf8fwkkbpnjtzbg9l2lo40oxzd1 > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-143%3A+Unified+Sink+API > > > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-177%3A+Extend+Sink+API > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-191%3A+Extend+unified+Sink+interface+to+support+small+file+compaction > > > > > [5] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-197%3A+API+stability+graduation+process > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > https://twitter.com/snntrable > > > https://github.com/knaufk > > > > > >
