[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-12776?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16861680#comment-16861680
]
sunjincheng edited comment on FLINK-12776 at 6/12/19 3:20 AM:
--------------------------------------------------------------
@stephan already brings up the discussion for `Deprecate previous Python APIs`
detail can be found
[here|[http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Deprecate-previous-Python-APIs-td29483.html]].
share my thoughts here:
* If it is only the problem of ambiguous licensing declarations, we should add
the explanation information should be work. Solution #3.
* If we are concerned about having two `flink-python` modules in 1.9 and two
`flink-pythonXXX.jar` in DIST, then we can indeed change the module name, so
which name to choose need to be discussed. Currently, we have 2 candidate
names:
** flink-api-python - for this name may have two concerns:
*** name patterns - the names of modules in flink is `{{flink-language`}}
patterns, such as `{{flink-java`}}, `{{flink-scala`, `flink-streaming-java`,
`flink-streaming-scala` etc. we would be prefer follow the
`}}{{flink-language`}}{{ patterns.}}
*** {{Functional boundary - for the goal of `}}{{flink-python`}}{{ will add
}}{{user-defined-functions}}{{ support in the next release, for UDFs we will
add }}{{data-service}}{{, }}{{state-service}}{{...etc. And it's not only the
API level. }}{{}}
** {{flink-py - This name is better due to }}{{`flink-py` followed the current
`}}{{flink-language`}}{{ patterns. And `py` always stands to `Python` language.
such as `pyHive`, `pyHDFS` `py4j`, `py27` etc. i.e., `flink-py` equals
`flink-python`. Even if we delete `libraries\flink-python` in the future,
`flink-py` still has a wide range of awareness and is simple enough.}}
BTW: If we can accept that the two `flink-python` modules only in 1.9, I also
agree to keep the module name as `flink-python`. After all, the name
`flink-python` has been used in flink for a long time, and flink users and devs
are very familiar. We can simply add an explanation to the NOTICE file to
eliminate ambiguity.
What do you think?
was (Author: sunjincheng121):
@stephan already brings up the discussion for `Deprecate previous Python APIs`
detail can be found
[here|[http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Deprecate-previous-Python-APIs-td29483.html]].
Any thoughts?
> Ambiguous content in flink-dist NOTICE file
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-12776
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-12776
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: API / Python, Release System
> Affects Versions: 1.9.0
> Reporter: Chesnay Schepler
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 1.9.0
>
> Attachments: image-2019-06-10-09-39-06-637.png
>
>
> With FLINK-12409 we include the new flink-python module in flink-dist. As a
> result we now have 2 {{flink-python}} entries in the flink-dist NOTICE file,
> one for the old batch API and one for the newly added one, which is
> ambiguous. We should rectify this by either excluding the old batch API from
> flink-dist, or rename the new module to something like {{flink-api-python}}.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
