Hi Martjin,
After some more careful consideration I am in favor of dropping the Scala
API support in with Flink 2.0 given that we add Java 17 support earlier or
latest at the same time.
Best,
Marton
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 12:01 PM Chesnay Schepler
wrote:
> Support for records has not been
Support for records has not been investigated yet. We're still at the
stage of getting things to run at all on Java 17.
It _may_ be possible, it _may_ not be.
On 13/10/2022 07:39, Salva Alcántara wrote:
Hi Martijn,
Maybe a bit of an off-topic, but regarding Java 17 support, will it be
Hi Martijn,
Maybe a bit of an off-topic, but regarding Java 17 support, will it be
possible to replace POJOs with Java records in existing applications?
In a project I maintain we use Lombok a lot, but with Java records we would
probably stop using it (or significantly reduce its usage).
Will
Hi everyone,
Thanks again for all your feedback. It's very much appreciated.
My overall feeling is that people are not opposed to the FLIP. There is
demand for adding Java 17 support before dropping the Scala APIs. Given
that the proposal for actually dropping the Scala APIs would only happen
Hi Martjin,
Thanks for compiling the FLIP. I think the removal of Scala in the later
version 2.0 will help us to align with the JDK version in a more timely
manner. Scala may be difficult to maintain due to too much syntactic sugar
during maintenance (only represents a personal opinion). Flink
I also noticed that we two replies in a separate thread on the User mailing
list, which can be found at
https://lists.apache.org/thread/m5ntl3cj81wg7frbfqg9v75c7hqnxtls.
I've included Clayton and David in this email, to at least centralize the
conversation once more :)
On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at
@Maciek
I saw that I missed replying to your question:
> Could you please remind what was the conclusion of discussion on
upgrading Scala to 2.12.15/16?
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/hwksnsqyg7n3djymo7m1s7loymxxbc3t - I
couldn't find any follow-up vote?
There is a vote thread, but that
> I'm curious what target Scala versions people are currently interested
in.
> I would've expected that everyone wants to migrate to Scala 3, for which
several wrapper projects around Flink already exist
The Scala 3 tooling is still subpar (we're using IntelliJ), so I'm not sure
I would move my
> It's possible that for the sake of the Scala API, we would
occasionally require some changes in the Java API. As long as those
changes are not detrimental to Java users, they should be considered.
That's exactly the model we're trying to get to. Don't fix
scala-specific issues with scala
Hello everyone,
I've already answered a bit on Twitter, I'll develop my thoughts a bit
here. For context, my company (DataDome) has a significant codebase on
Scala Flink (around 110K LOC), having been using it since 2017. I myself am
an enthusiastic Scala developer (I don't think I'd like moving
Hey Martijn,
Well, as a user I think that Scala API still adds a tremendous value, with
all its issues. But I'm not a committer and I don't know what effort it
takes to keep maintaining it... so I prepare for the worst :)
Regarding the proposed timeline, I don't know all the specifics around
Hi Yaroslav,
If I could summarize your suggestion, would it mean that you would only be
in favour of dropping Scala API support if we introduce Java 17 support
exactly at the same time (say Flink 2.0). I was first thinking that an
alternative would be to have a Flink 2.0 which supports Java 17
Hi Martijn,
The 2.0 argument makes sense (I agree it's easier to introduce more
breaking changes in one major release), but I think my comment about Java
17 also makes sense in this case: 1) easier to introduce because breaking
changes are possible 2) you'd need to give some syntax sugar as an
Hi Yaroslav,
Thanks for the feedback, that's much appreciated! Regarding Java 17 as a
prerequisite, we would have to break compatibility already since Scala
2.12.7 doesn't compile on Java 17 [1].
Given that we can only remove Scala APIs with the next major Flink (2.0)
version, would that still
Hi Martijn,
As a Scala user, this change would affect me a lot and I'm not looking
forward to rewriting my codebase, and it's not even a very large one :)
I'd like to suggest supporting Java 17 as a prerequisite (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-15736). Things like switch
expressions
Hi Martijn,
Thanks for bringing this up. It is generally a great idea, so +1.
Since both scala extension projects mentioned in the FLIP are still very
young and I don't think they will attract more scala developers as Flink
could just because they are external projects. It will be a big issue
Hi Marton,
You're making a good point, I originally wanted to include already the User
mailing list to get their feedback but forgot to do so. I'll do some more
outreach via other channels as well.
@Users of Flink, I've made a proposal to deprecate and remove Scala API
support in a future
Hi Martjin,
Thanks for compiling the FLIP. I agree with the sentiment that Scala poses
considerable maintenance overhead and key improvements (like 2.13 or 2.12.8
supports) are hanging stale. With that said before we make this move we
should attempt to understand the userbase affected.
A quick
18 matches
Mail list logo
