That would definitely affect companies using GraphX, but at least they’d have the choice to migrate their code.
I think that’s probably the way to go. El dom, 6 oct 2024 a las 6:09, Holden Karau (<holden.ka...@gmail.com>) escribió: > So removing GraphX from Spark would not prevent GraphFrames from > continuing, they could pick up the GraphX source and incorporate it into > their project. > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau > Fight Health Insurance: https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com/ > <https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com/?q=hk_email> > Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.): > https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9 <https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9> > YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau > Pronouns: she/her > > > On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 5:22 PM Russell Jurney <russell.jur...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> A lot of people like me use GraphFrames for its connected components >> implementation and its motif matching feature. I am willing to work on it >> to keep it alive. They did a 0.8.3 release not too long ago. Please keep >> GraphX alive. >> >> On Sat, Oct 5, 2024 at 3:44 PM Mich Talebzadeh <mich.talebza...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>>> >>>>>
