Agree with Andrey, let's remove deprecation for now and unblock the release.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:23 PM Andrey Gura <ag...@apache.org> wrote: > I'll just repeat one thought with some changes. > > There are at least two groups of people in this discussion. One group > sure that new API is complete and production ready while other group > disagree with it. Obviously we can't reach consensus about it right > now. But we can do it in the future. > At present we just can't deprecate existing API and mark new API as > experimental at the same time. So we must remove deprecation until the > consensus is reached. > > Also there is the third group of people. This people aren't related > with the API, they may be don't need the API and they wait for bug > fixes and other features. It is very easy to satisfy third group: just > cut off what caused the release blocking. But it is much easier to > remove @deprecated annotations. > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 8:54 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Alexey. > > > > I answered to your examples and issues you provide. > > But, it seems the discussion of the API and the Java code itself is not > the goal of this thread anymore. > > > > > Should we provide a way to know the number of metrics and registries > in advance? > > > > No. > > If you think this is the real use-as let’s add `size` methods. > > It will be the simple API *extension*. > > > > > There is no separation on public and internal metrics > > > > Any metric can be changed(removed) in any time. > > But we will try not to do it unless we have a strong reason. > > > > > Will we allow users to register their own metrics? > > > > No. > > > > > It's still not clear how a user will map old interfaces and methods to > the new metric names. > > > > We should write this information in the deprecation message. > > > > > 30 янв. 2020 г., в 20:27, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> > написал(а): > > > > > > Nikita, > > > > > > Disagree here. I already gave an example in this thread of how you > need to > > > peek into configuration in order to obtain an instance of exporter SPI > > > which may not necessarily be the type you need. That's why > IGNITE-12553 was > > > created in the first place. > > >
