jianyun8023 commented on pull request #14623: URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/14623#issuecomment-772404537
> Sorry for coming back so late to this PR. Code-wise, it looks mostly fine. I would add a complete code review later. > > However, I'd like to clarify first, why we want to have the old implementation in Flink master at all. From my perspective, this is instant legacy. So there needs to be a strong reason to have it compared to merge only the new interfaces. > > Possible reasons could include features that cannot be supported with the new PulsarSink. In general, when would a user choose the old implementation over the new implementation given that the new sink interface is quite stable in Flink 1.13? > > I'm duplicating the reply to the Source PR as the answer may be different. I think the new version of Sink interface is still in iteration and not reliable enough. Providing an older implementation may be a better option for users. We are following up on the new Sink and will submit it up as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
