StephanEwen commented on pull request #13512: URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/13512#issuecomment-702065085
For both topics, this PR here stays close to what the previous state of sources was, in an effort to port the previous state to the new API. We can open the discussions about having different package structures in the future, but do we need to block this PR on that? The package structure in flink-core has never separated API and implementation, and the `api` name was not chosen with very much consideration. IIRC mainly to separate SDK from runtime parts. (Arguable `.sdk.` would have been the correct name, but were were all younger and less experienced when we created these parts.) From the user's perspective I think it is better to stay consistent within one style then have different packages follow different styles. That adds more confusion and makes it harder to navigate. Similar for the "deep integration", I feel this should not block this PR (foremost because this PR does not touch anything there). That is a different discussion that we should either apply everywhere or not do it. Doing this now here differently than in all other places will add confusion for users. Another side of the problem is that many of these methods `env.generateSequence(...)` are public API that we should not break. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
