[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-30454?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17649365#comment-17649365
]
Robert Metzger commented on FLINK-30454:
----------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure these are not public classes. We use the @Public /
@PublicEvolving / @Internal annotations to mark interface visibility in Flink.
The TaskIOMetricGroup-stuff is, in my understanding anyways internal.
> Inconsistent class hierarchy in TaskIOMetricGroup
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-30454
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-30454
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Runtime / Metrics
> Reporter: Gunnar Morling
> Priority: Major
>
> I noticed an interesting issue when trying to compile the flink-runtime
> module with Eclipse (same for VSCode): the _private_ inner class
> {{org.apache.flink.runtime.metrics.groups.TaskIOMetricGroup.SizeGauge}} has
> yet another _public_ inner class, {{{}SizeSupplier{}}}. The public method
> {{org.apache.flink.runtime.metrics.groups.TaskIOMetricGroup.registerMailboxSizeSupplier(SizeSupplier<Integer>)}}
> has a parameter of that type.
> The invocation of this method in
> {{org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks.StreamTask.StreamTask(Environment,
> TimerService, UncaughtExceptionHandler, StreamTaskActionExecutor,
> TaskMailbox)}} can be compiled with the javac compiler of the JDK, but fails
> to compile with ecj:
> {code:java}
> The type TaskIOMetricGroup.SizeGauge from the descriptor computed for the
> target context is not visible here.
> {code}
> I tend to believe that the behavior of Eclipse's compiler is the correct one.
> After all, you couldn't explicitly reference the {{SizeSupplier}} type either.
> One possible fix would be to promote {{SizeSupplier}} to the same level as
> {{{}SizeGauge{}}}. This would be source-compatible but not binary-compatible,
> though. I.e. code compiled against the earlier signature of
> {{registerMailboxSizeSupplier()}} would be broken with a
> {{{}NoSuchMethodError{}}}. Depending on whether
> {{registerMailboxSizeSupplier()}} are expected in client code or not, this
> may or may not be acceptable.
> Another fix would be to make {{SizeGauge}} public. I think that's the change
> I'd do. Curious what other folks here think.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
