AHeise commented on pull request #14622: URL: https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/14622#issuecomment-773234617
> Because the older version of Source has been verified in production and is stable for users to use. The implementation in the new version has yet to be verified. > This is the reason why I want to keep the old version of Source. That's certainly a good argument, but why wouldn't the users simply take the streamnative version if they want to have the stable version? I'm mostly concerned that if we reach a stable version in the process of bugfixing Flink 1.13, we will add (for all practical purposes) dead code in this PR. Even worse, it may confuse users and they may accidentally choose the old version instead of the new version. Then, the user may experience all the downsides of the old source architecture without even realizing it (there are a few implications regarding checkpointing). To solve it, I guess we would mark the `PulsarSourceFunction` as deprecated, which would mean that we would add code now for 1.13.0 and deprecate it in 1.13.X or latest in 1.14.0. So we are adding code now where we immediately need to think about how to get rid of. I think the best argument for merging the PR is that the user may actually use the stable `PulsarSourceFunction` in 1.13.0 and then switch to the new `PulsarSource` in 1.13.X without changing dependencies. Another important consideration is if the user can use the old function for use cases where the new `PulsarSource` does not suffice (yet). Another option is that we prepare this PR (1-2 review cycles) and leave it unmerged until we know that the new `PulsarSource` misses critical feature for 1.13 and merge it then. Until then, I'd prefer to bet on a good first `PulsarSource` (I have no doubts that you will make a good job in porting it) and solve any actual issues with fast bugfix releases. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
