Re: [DISCUSS] Drop RequiredParameters and OptionType

[vino yang]

+1,

One concern: these two classes are marked with `@publicEvolving`
annotation.
Shall we mark them with `@Deprecated` annotation firstly?

Best,
Vino

Dian Fu  于2019年12月3日周二 下午8:56写道：

> +1 to remove them. It seems that we should also drop the class Option as
> it's currently only used in RequiredParameters.
>
> 在 2019年12月3日，下午8:34，Robert Metzger  写道：
>
> +1 on removing it.
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:31 PM Stephan Ewen  wrote:
>
>> I just stumbled across these classes recently and was looking for sample
>> uses.
>> No examples and other tests in the code base seem to
>> use RequiredParameters and OptionType.
>>
>> They also seem quite redundant with how ParameterTool itself works
>> (tool.getRequired()).
>>
>> Should we drop them, in an attempt to reduce unnecessary code and
>> confusion for users (multiple ways to do the same thing)? There are also
>> many better command line parsing libraries out there, this seems like
>> something we don't need to solve in Flink.
>>
>> Best,
>> Stephan
>>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop RequiredParameters and OptionType

[Dian Fu]

+1 to remove them. It seems that we should also drop the class Option as it's 
currently only used in RequiredParameters.

> 在 2019年12月3日，下午8:34，Robert Metzger  写道：
> 
> +1 on removing it.
> 
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:31 PM Stephan Ewen  > wrote:
> I just stumbled across these classes recently and was looking for sample uses.
> No examples and other tests in the code base seem to use RequiredParameters 
> and OptionType.
> 
> They also seem quite redundant with how ParameterTool itself works 
> (tool.getRequired()).
> 
> Should we drop them, in an attempt to reduce unnecessary code and confusion 
> for users (multiple ways to do the same thing)? There are also many better 
> command line parsing libraries out there, this seems like something we don't 
> need to solve in Flink.
> 
> Best,
> Stephan

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop RequiredParameters and OptionType

[Robert Metzger]

+1 on removing it.

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 12:31 PM Stephan Ewen  wrote:

> I just stumbled across these classes recently and was looking for sample
> uses.
> No examples and other tests in the code base seem to
> use RequiredParameters and OptionType.
>
> They also seem quite redundant with how ParameterTool itself works
> (tool.getRequired()).
>
> Should we drop them, in an attempt to reduce unnecessary code and
> confusion for users (multiple ways to do the same thing)? There are also
> many better command line parsing libraries out there, this seems like
> something we don't need to solve in Flink.
>
> Best,
> Stephan
>

[DISCUSS] Drop RequiredParameters and OptionType

[Stephan Ewen]

I just stumbled across these classes recently and was looking for sample
uses.
No examples and other tests in the code base seem to use RequiredParameters
and OptionType.

They also seem quite redundant with how ParameterTool itself works
(tool.getRequired()).

Should we drop them, in an attempt to reduce unnecessary code and confusion
for users (multiple ways to do the same thing)? There are also many better
command line parsing libraries out there, this seems like something we
don't need to solve in Flink.

Best,
Stephan