Re: A new reworked Elasticsearch 7+ IO module

[Etienne Chauchot]

Hi all,

The survey regarding Elasticsearch support in Beam is now closed.

Here are the results after 38 days:

users using

ESv2: 0

ESV5: 1

ESV6: 5

ESV7: 8

So, the new version of ElasticsearchIO after the refactoring discussed 
in this thread will no more support Elasticsearch v2.


Regards

Etienne Chauchot.


On 06/03/2020 11:26, Etienne Chauchot wrote:


Hi all,

it's been 3 weeks since the survey on ES versions the users use.

The survey received very few responses: only 9 responses for now 
(multiple versions possible of course). The responses are the following:


ES2: 0 clients, ES5: 1, ES6: 5, ES7: 8

It tends to go toward a drop of ES2 support but for now it is still 
not very representative.


I'm cross-posting to @users to let you know that I'm closing the 
survey within 1 or 2 weeks. So please respond if you're using ESIO.


Best

Etienne

On 13/02/2020 12:37, Etienne Chauchot wrote:


Hi Cham, thanks for your comments !

I just sent an email to user ML with a survey link to count ES uses 
per version:


https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rc8185afb8af86a2a032909c13f569e18bd89e75a5839894d5b5d4082%40%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E

Best

Etienne

On 10/02/2020 19:46, Chamikara Jayalath wrote:



On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:13 AM Etienne Chauchot 
mailto:echauc...@apache.org>> wrote:


Hi,

please see my comments inline

On 06/02/2020 16:24, Alexey Romanenko wrote:

Please, see my comments inline.


On 6 Feb 2020, at 10:50, Etienne Chauchot
mailto:echauc...@apache.org>> wrote:



1. regarding version support: ES v2 is no more
maintained by Elastic since 2018/02 so we plan to
remove it from the IO. In the past we already
retired versions (like spark 1.6 for instance).



My only concern here is that there might be users who use
the existing module who might not be able to easily
upgrade the Beam version if we remove it. But given that
V2 is 5 versions behind the latest release this might be OK.


It seems we have a consensus on this.
I think there should be another general discussion on the
long term support of our prefered tool IO modules.


=> yes, consensus, let's drop ESV2


We had (and still have) a similar problem with KafkaIO to
support different versions of Kafka, especially very old
version 0.9. We raised this question on user@ and it appears
that there are users who for some reasons still use old Kafka
versions. So, before dropping a support of any ES versions, I’d
suggest to ask it user@ and see if any people will be affected
by this.

Yes we can do a survey among users but the question is, should
we support an ES version that is no more supported by Elastic
themselves ?


+1 for asking in the user list. I guess this is more about whether 
users need this specific version that we hope to drop support for. 
Whether we need to support unsupported versions is a more generic 
question that should prob. be addressed in the dev list. (and I 
personally don't think we should unless there's a large enough user 
base for a given version).



2. regarding the user: the aim is to unlock some
new features (listed by Ludovic) and give the user
more flexibility on his request. For that, it
requires to use high level java ES client in place
of the low level REST client (that was used because
it is the only one compatible with all ES
versions). We plan to replace the API (json
document in and out) by more complete standard ES
objects that contain de request logic
(insert/update, doc routing etc...) and the data.
There are already IOs like SpannerIO that use
similar objects in input PCollection rather than
pure POJOs.



Won't this be a breaking change for all users ? IMO using
POJOs in PCollections is safer since we have to worry
about changes to the underlying client library API.
Exception would be when underlying client library offers
a backwards compatibility guarantee that we can rely on
for the foreseeable future (for example, BQ TableRow).


Agreed but actually, there will be POJOs in order to abstract
Elasticsearch's version support. The following third point
explains this.


=> indeed it will be a breaking change, hence this email to
get a consensus on that. Also I think our wrappers of ES
request objects will offer a backward compatible as the
underlying objects


I just want to remind that according to what we agreed some
time ago on dev@ (at least, for IOs), all breaking user API
changes have to be added along with deprecation of old API that
could be removed after 3 consecutive Beam releases. In this
case, users will have a time to move to new API smoothly.


We are more discussing 

Re: A new reworked Elasticsearch 7+ IO module

[Jean-Baptiste Onofre]

Hi,

I think WARN makes sense and the safest approach. It allows users to be notify 
and eventually update or back on previous Beam IO version.

Regards
JB

> Le 6 mars 2020 à 18:49, Kenneth Knowles  a écrit :
> 
> Since the user provides backendVersion, here are some possible levels of 
> things to add in expand() based on that (these are extra niceties beyond the 
> agreed number of releases to remove)
> 
>  - WARN for backendVersion < n
>  - reject for backendVersion < n with opt-in pipeline option to keep it 
> working one more version (gets their attention and indicates urgency)
>  - reject completely
> 
> Kenn
> 
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 2:26 AM Etienne Chauchot  > wrote:
> Hi all, 
> 
> it's been 3 weeks since the survey on ES versions the users use. 
> 
> The survey received very few responses: only 9 responses for now (multiple 
> versions possible of course). The responses are the following:
> 
> ES2: 0 clients, ES5: 1, ES6: 5, ES7: 8 
> 
> It tends to go toward a drop of ES2 support but for now it is still not very 
> representative.
> 
> I'm cross-posting to @users to let you know that I'm closing the survey 
> within 1 or 2 weeks. So please respond if you're using ESIO.
> 
> Best
> 
> Etienne
> 
> On 13/02/2020 12:37, Etienne Chauchot wrote:
>> Hi Cham, thanks for your comments !
>> 
>> I just sent an email to user ML with a survey link to count ES uses per 
>> version:
>> 
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rc8185afb8af86a2a032909c13f569e18bd89e75a5839894d5b5d4082%40%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
>>  
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Etienne
>> 
>> On 10/02/2020 19:46, Chamikara Jayalath wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:13 AM Etienne Chauchot >> > wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> please see my comments inline
>>> 
>>> On 06/02/2020 16:24, Alexey Romanenko wrote:
 Please, see my comments inline.
 
> On 6 Feb 2020, at 10:50, Etienne Chauchot  > wrote:
 1. regarding version support: ES v2 is no more maintained by Elastic 
 since 2018/02 so we plan to remove it from the IO. In the past we 
 already retired versions (like spark 1.6 for instance).
 
>> 
>> 
>> My only concern here is that there might be users who use the existing 
>> module who might not be able to easily upgrade the Beam version if we 
>> remove it. But given that V2 is 5 versions behind the latest release 
>> this might be OK.
>> 
>> It seems we have a consensus on this.
>> I think there should be another general discussion on the long term 
>> support of our prefered tool IO modules.
> => yes, consensus, let's drop ESV2
> 
 We had (and still have) a similar problem with KafkaIO to support 
 different versions of Kafka, especially very old version 0.9. We raised 
 this question on user@ and it appears that there are users who for some 
 reasons still use old Kafka versions. So, before dropping a support of any 
 ES versions, I’d suggest to ask it user@ and see if any people will be 
 affected by this.
>>> Yes we can do a survey among users but the question is, should we support 
>>> an ES version that is no more supported by Elastic themselves ?
>>> 
>>> +1 for asking in the user list. I guess this is more about whether users 
>>> need this specific version that we hope to drop support for. Whether we 
>>> need to support unsupported versions is a more generic question that should 
>>> prob. be addressed in the dev list. (and I personally don't think we should 
>>> unless there's a large enough user base for a given version).
>>> 
> 
 2. regarding the user: the aim is to unlock some new features (listed 
 by Ludovic) and give the user more flexibility on his request. For 
 that, it requires to use high level java ES client in place of the low 
 level REST client (that was used because it is the only one compatible 
 with all ES versions). We plan to replace the API (json document in 
 and out) by more complete standard ES objects that contain de request 
 logic (insert/update, doc routing etc...) and the data. There are 
 already IOs like SpannerIO that use similar objects in input 
 PCollection rather than pure POJOs. 
 
>> 
>> 
>> Won't this be a breaking change for all users ? IMO using POJOs in 
>> PCollections is safer since we have to worry about changes to the 
>> underlying client library API. Exception would be when underlying client 
>> library offers a backwards compatibility guarantee that we can rely on 
>> for the foreseeable future (for example, BQ TableRow).
>> 
>> Agreed but actually, there will be POJOs in order to abstract 
>> Elasticsearch's version support. The 

Re: A new reworked Elasticsearch 7+ IO module

[Kenneth Knowles]

Since the user provides backendVersion, here are some possible levels of
things to add in expand() based on that (these are extra niceties beyond
the agreed number of releases to remove)

 - WARN for backendVersion < n
 - reject for backendVersion < n with opt-in pipeline option to keep it
working one more version (gets their attention and indicates urgency)
 - reject completely

Kenn

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 2:26 AM Etienne Chauchot 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> it's been 3 weeks since the survey on ES versions the users use.
>
> The survey received very few responses: only 9 responses for now (multiple
> versions possible of course). The responses are the following:
>
> ES2: 0 clients, ES5: 1, ES6: 5, ES7: 8
>
> It tends to go toward a drop of ES2 support but for now it is still not
> very representative.
>
> I'm cross-posting to @users to let you know that I'm closing the survey
> within 1 or 2 weeks. So please respond if you're using ESIO.
>
> Best
>
> Etienne
> On 13/02/2020 12:37, Etienne Chauchot wrote:
>
> Hi Cham, thanks for your comments !
>
> I just sent an email to user ML with a survey link to count ES uses per
> version:
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rc8185afb8af86a2a032909c13f569e18bd89e75a5839894d5b5d4082%40%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E
>
> Best
>
> Etienne
> On 10/02/2020 19:46, Chamikara Jayalath wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:13 AM Etienne Chauchot 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> please see my comments inline
>> On 06/02/2020 16:24, Alexey Romanenko wrote:
>>
>> Please, see my comments inline.
>>
>> On 6 Feb 2020, at 10:50, Etienne Chauchot  wrote:
>>
>> 1. regarding version support: ES v2 is no more maintained by Elastic
 since 2018/02 so we plan to remove it from the IO. In the past we already
 retired versions (like spark 1.6 for instance).


>>> My only concern here is that there might be users who use the existing
>>> module who might not be able to easily upgrade the Beam version if we
>>> remove it. But given that V2 is 5 versions behind the latest release this
>>> might be OK.
>>>
>>
>> It seems we have a consensus on this.
>> I think there should be another general discussion on the long term
>> support of our prefered tool IO modules.
>>
>> => yes, consensus, let's drop ESV2
>>
>> We had (and still have) a similar problem with KafkaIO to support
>> different versions of Kafka, especially very old version 0.9. We raised
>> this question on user@ and it appears that there are users who for some
>> reasons still use old Kafka versions. So, before dropping a support of any
>> ES versions, I’d suggest to ask it user@ and see if any people will be
>> affected by this.
>>
>> Yes we can do a survey among users but the question is, should we support
>> an ES version that is no more supported by Elastic themselves ?
>>
>
> +1 for asking in the user list. I guess this is more about whether users
> need this specific version that we hope to drop support for. Whether we
> need to support unsupported versions is a more generic question that should
> prob. be addressed in the dev list. (and I personally don't think we should
> unless there's a large enough user base for a given version).
>
> 2. regarding the user: the aim is to unlock some new features (listed by
 Ludovic) and give the user more flexibility on his request. For that, it
 requires to use high level java ES client in place of the low level REST
 client (that was used because it is the only one compatible with all ES
 versions). We plan to replace the API (json document in and out) by more
 complete standard ES objects that contain de request logic (insert/update,
 doc routing etc...) and the data. There are already IOs like SpannerIO that
 use similar objects in input PCollection rather than pure POJOs.


>>> Won't this be a breaking change for all users ? IMO using POJOs in
>>> PCollections is safer since we have to worry about changes to the
>>> underlying client library API. Exception would be when underlying client
>>> library offers a backwards compatibility guarantee that we can rely on for
>>> the foreseeable future (for example, BQ TableRow).
>>>
>>
>> Agreed but actually, there will be POJOs in order to abstract
>> Elasticsearch's version support. The following third point explains this.
>>
>> => indeed it will be a breaking change, hence this email to get a
>> consensus on that. Also I think our wrappers of ES request objects will
>> offer a backward compatible as the underlying objects
>>
>> I just want to remind that according to what we agreed some time ago on
>> dev@ (at least, for IOs), all breaking user API changes have to be added
>> along with deprecation of old API that could be removed after 3 consecutive
>> Beam releases. In this case, users will have a time to move to new API
>> smoothly.
>>
>> We are more discussing the target architecture of the new module here but
>> the process of deprecation is important to recall, I agree. When I say DTOs
>> 

Re: A new reworked Elasticsearch 7+ IO module

[Etienne Chauchot]

Hi all,

it's been 3 weeks since the survey on ES versions the users use.

The survey received very few responses: only 9 responses for now 
(multiple versions possible of course). The responses are the following:


ES2: 0 clients, ES5: 1, ES6: 5, ES7: 8

It tends to go toward a drop of ES2 support but for now it is still not 
very representative.


I'm cross-posting to @users to let you know that I'm closing the survey 
within 1 or 2 weeks. So please respond if you're using ESIO.


Best

Etienne

On 13/02/2020 12:37, Etienne Chauchot wrote:


Hi Cham, thanks for your comments !

I just sent an email to user ML with a survey link to count ES uses 
per version:


https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rc8185afb8af86a2a032909c13f569e18bd89e75a5839894d5b5d4082%40%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E

Best

Etienne

On 10/02/2020 19:46, Chamikara Jayalath wrote:



On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:13 AM Etienne Chauchot > wrote:


Hi,

please see my comments inline

On 06/02/2020 16:24, Alexey Romanenko wrote:

Please, see my comments inline.


On 6 Feb 2020, at 10:50, Etienne Chauchot mailto:echauc...@apache.org>> wrote:



1. regarding version support: ES v2 is no more
maintained by Elastic since 2018/02 so we plan to
remove it from the IO. In the past we already
retired versions (like spark 1.6 for instance).



My only concern here is that there might be users who use
the existing module who might not be able to easily
upgrade the Beam version if we remove it. But given that
V2 is 5 versions behind the latest release this might be OK.


It seems we have a consensus on this.
I think there should be another general discussion on the long
term support of our prefered tool IO modules.


=> yes, consensus, let's drop ESV2


We had (and still have) a similar problem with KafkaIO to
support different versions of Kafka, especially very old version
0.9. We raised this question on user@ and it appears that there
are users who for some reasons still use old Kafka versions. So,
before dropping a support of any ES versions, I’d suggest to ask
it user@ and see if any people will be affected by this.

Yes we can do a survey among users but the question is, should we
support an ES version that is no more supported by Elastic
themselves ?


+1 for asking in the user list. I guess this is more about whether 
users need this specific version that we hope to drop support for. 
Whether we need to support unsupported versions is a more generic 
question that should prob. be addressed in the dev list. (and I 
personally don't think we should unless there's a large enough user 
base for a given version).



2. regarding the user: the aim is to unlock some new
features (listed by Ludovic) and give the user more
flexibility on his request. For that, it requires to
use high level java ES client in place of the low
level REST client (that was used because it is the
only one compatible with all ES versions). We plan
to replace the API (json document in and out) by
more complete standard ES objects that contain de
request logic (insert/update, doc routing etc...)
and the data. There are already IOs like SpannerIO
that use similar objects in input PCollection rather
than pure POJOs.



Won't this be a breaking change for all users ? IMO using
POJOs in PCollections is safer since we have to worry
about changes to the underlying client library API.
Exception would be when underlying client library offers a
backwards compatibility guarantee that we can rely on for
the foreseeable future (for example, BQ TableRow).


Agreed but actually, there will be POJOs in order to abstract
Elasticsearch's version support. The following third point
explains this.


=> indeed it will be a breaking change, hence this email to get
a consensus on that. Also I think our wrappers of ES request
objects will offer a backward compatible as the underlying objects


I just want to remind that according to what we agreed some time
ago on dev@ (at least, for IOs), all breaking user API changes
have to be added along with deprecation of old API that could be
removed after 3 consecutive Beam releases. In this case, users
will have a time to move to new API smoothly.


We are more discussing the target architecture of the new module
here but the process of deprecation is important to recall, I
agree. When I say DTOs backward compatible above I mean between
per-version sub-modules inside the new module. Anyway, sure, for
some time, both modules (the old REST-based that supports v2-7
and the new that supports v5-7) will cohabit and the old one will