[DISCUSS] Deprecate Spargel API for 0.9

[Vasiliki Kalavri <va...@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

I would like your opinion on whether we should deprecate the Spargel API in
0.9.

Gelly doesn't depend on Spargel, it actually contains it -- we have copied
the relevant classes over. I think it would be a good idea to deprecate
Spargel in 0.9, so that we can inform existing Spargel users that we'll
eventually remove it.

Also, I think the fact that we have 2 Graph APIs in the documentation might
be a bit confusing for newcomers. One might wonder why do we have them both
and when shall they use one over the other?

It might be a good idea to add a note in the Spargel guide that would
suggest to use Gelly instead and a corresponding note in the beginning of
the Gelly guide to explain that Spargel is part of Gelly now. Or maybe a
"Gelly or Spargel?" section. What do you think?

The only thing that worries me is that the Gelly API is not very stable. Of
course, we are mostly adding things, but we are planning to make some
changes as well and I'm sure more will be needed the more we use it.

Looking forward to your thoughts!

Cheers,
Vasia.

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate Spargel API for 0.9

[Alexander Alexandrov <al...@gmail.com>]

+1

2015-03-11 9:41 GMT+01:00 Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>:

> If Spargel's functionality is a subset of Gelly, I'm also in favor of a
> deprecation. This will direct new users directly to Gelly and gives old
> ones time to adapt their code.
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for bringing up for discussion, Vasia
> >
> >
> > I am +1 for deprecating Spargel for 0.9 release.
> >
> > It is confusing for new comer (well even for me) to Flink and found
> > out there are 2 sets of Graph APIs.
> >
> > We could use 0.9 release as stabilization period for Gelly, which is
> > why Spargel is deprecated and not removed, and by next release we have
> > more time to flush it out and hopefully we could remove Spargel (maybe
> > keep it deprecated one more time).
> >
> > But I think there should be only ONE Graph API that Flink should
> > promote and I think it should be Gelly at this point.
> >
> > - Henry
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri
> > <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I would like your opinion on whether we should deprecate the Spargel
> API
> > in
> > > 0.9.
> > >
> > > Gelly doesn't depend on Spargel, it actually contains it -- we have
> > copied
> > > the relevant classes over. I think it would be a good idea to deprecate
> > > Spargel in 0.9, so that we can inform existing Spargel users that we'll
> > > eventually remove it.
> > >
> > > Also, I think the fact that we have 2 Graph APIs in the documentation
> > might
> > > be a bit confusing for newcomers. One might wonder why do we have them
> > both
> > > and when shall they use one over the other?
> > >
> > > It might be a good idea to add a note in the Spargel guide that would
> > > suggest to use Gelly instead and a corresponding note in the beginning
> of
> > > the Gelly guide to explain that Spargel is part of Gelly now. Or maybe
> a
> > > "Gelly or Spargel?" section. What do you think?
> > >
> > > The only thing that worries me is that the Gelly API is not very
> stable.
> > Of
> > > course, we are mostly adding things, but we are planning to make some
> > > changes as well and I'm sure more will be needed the more we use it.
> > >
> > > Looking forward to your thoughts!
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Vasia.
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate Spargel API for 0.9

[Till Rohrmann <tr...@apache.org>]

If Spargel's functionality is a subset of Gelly, I'm also in favor of a
deprecation. This will direct new users directly to Gelly and gives old
ones time to adapt their code.

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for bringing up for discussion, Vasia
>
>
> I am +1 for deprecating Spargel for 0.9 release.
>
> It is confusing for new comer (well even for me) to Flink and found
> out there are 2 sets of Graph APIs.
>
> We could use 0.9 release as stabilization period for Gelly, which is
> why Spargel is deprecated and not removed, and by next release we have
> more time to flush it out and hopefully we could remove Spargel (maybe
> keep it deprecated one more time).
>
> But I think there should be only ONE Graph API that Flink should
> promote and I think it should be Gelly at this point.
>
> - Henry
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri
> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like your opinion on whether we should deprecate the Spargel API
> in
> > 0.9.
> >
> > Gelly doesn't depend on Spargel, it actually contains it -- we have
> copied
> > the relevant classes over. I think it would be a good idea to deprecate
> > Spargel in 0.9, so that we can inform existing Spargel users that we'll
> > eventually remove it.
> >
> > Also, I think the fact that we have 2 Graph APIs in the documentation
> might
> > be a bit confusing for newcomers. One might wonder why do we have them
> both
> > and when shall they use one over the other?
> >
> > It might be a good idea to add a note in the Spargel guide that would
> > suggest to use Gelly instead and a corresponding note in the beginning of
> > the Gelly guide to explain that Spargel is part of Gelly now. Or maybe a
> > "Gelly or Spargel?" section. What do you think?
> >
> > The only thing that worries me is that the Gelly API is not very stable.
> Of
> > course, we are mostly adding things, but we are planning to make some
> > changes as well and I'm sure more will be needed the more we use it.
> >
> > Looking forward to your thoughts!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Vasia.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate Spargel API for 0.9

[Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>]

Thanks for bringing up for discussion, Vasia


I am +1 for deprecating Spargel for 0.9 release.

It is confusing for new comer (well even for me) to Flink and found
out there are 2 sets of Graph APIs.

We could use 0.9 release as stabilization period for Gelly, which is
why Spargel is deprecated and not removed, and by next release we have
more time to flush it out and hopefully we could remove Spargel (maybe
keep it deprecated one more time).

But I think there should be only ONE Graph API that Flink should
promote and I think it should be Gelly at this point.

- Henry

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri
<va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like your opinion on whether we should deprecate the Spargel API in
> 0.9.
>
> Gelly doesn't depend on Spargel, it actually contains it -- we have copied
> the relevant classes over. I think it would be a good idea to deprecate
> Spargel in 0.9, so that we can inform existing Spargel users that we'll
> eventually remove it.
>
> Also, I think the fact that we have 2 Graph APIs in the documentation might
> be a bit confusing for newcomers. One might wonder why do we have them both
> and when shall they use one over the other?
>
> It might be a good idea to add a note in the Spargel guide that would
> suggest to use Gelly instead and a corresponding note in the beginning of
> the Gelly guide to explain that Spargel is part of Gelly now. Or maybe a
> "Gelly or Spargel?" section. What do you think?
>
> The only thing that worries me is that the Gelly API is not very stable. Of
> course, we are mostly adding things, but we are planning to make some
> changes as well and I'm sure more will be needed the more we use it.
>
> Looking forward to your thoughts!
>
> Cheers,
> Vasia.

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate Spargel API for 0.9

[Andra Lungu <lu...@gmail.com>]

Big +1 for deprecating Spargel :D

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Vasiliki Kalavri <
vasilikikalavri@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I would like your opinion on whether we should deprecate the Spargel API in
> 0.9.
>
> Gelly doesn't depend on Spargel, it actually contains it -- we have copied
> the relevant classes over. I think it would be a good idea to deprecate
> Spargel in 0.9, so that we can inform existing Spargel users that we'll
> eventually remove it.
>
> Also, I think the fact that we have 2 Graph APIs in the documentation might
> be a bit confusing for newcomers. One might wonder why do we have them both
> and when shall they use one over the other?
>
> It might be a good idea to add a note in the Spargel guide that would
> suggest to use Gelly instead and a corresponding note in the beginning of
> the Gelly guide to explain that Spargel is part of Gelly now. Or maybe a
> "Gelly or Spargel?" section. What do you think?
>
> The only thing that worries me is that the Gelly API is not very stable. Of
> course, we are mostly adding things, but we are planning to make some
> changes as well and I'm sure more will be needed the more we use it.
>
> Looking forward to your thoughts!
>
> Cheers,
> Vasia.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate Spargel API for 0.9

[Vasiliki Kalavri <va...@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the input everyone!
If no objections, I will open an issue for deprecating the Spargel API
tomorrow.

Cheers,
V.

On 11 March 2015 at 15:59, Fabian Hueske <fh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for deprecating
>
> 2015-03-11 14:11 GMT+01:00 Kostas Tzoumas <kt...@apache.org>:
>
> > +1 for deprecating and pointing people to Gelly
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 10 Mar 2015, at 22:02, Vasiliki Kalavri <va...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I would like your opinion on whether we should deprecate the Spargel
> > API
> > > in
> > > > 0.9.
> > > >
> > > > Gelly doesn't depend on Spargel, it actually contains it -- we have
> > > copied
> > > > the relevant classes over. I think it would be a good idea to
> deprecate
> > > > Spargel in 0.9, so that we can inform existing Spargel users that
> we'll
> > > > eventually remove it.
> > >
> > > +1. I think it's OK as we want all Graph API users to go against Gelly
> in
> > > the future. I don't even think that many people are using Spargel as we
> > > never really promoted it heavily.
> > >
> > > > Also, I think the fact that we have 2 Graph APIs in the documentation
> > > might
> > > > be a bit confusing for newcomers. One might wonder why do we have
> them
> > > both
> > > > and when shall they use one over the other?
> > > >
> > > > It might be a good idea to add a note in the Spargel guide that would
> > > > suggest to use Gelly instead and a corresponding note in the
> beginning
> > of
> > > > the Gelly guide to explain that Spargel is part of Gelly now. Or
> maybe
> > a
> > > > "Gelly or Spargel?" section. What do you think?
> > >
> > > +1, but I wouldn't hint to that prominently in the beginning. I think a
> > > section about Spargel at the end, where you explain that it was our
> > initial
> > > take at graph processing and a link the respective (old) docs should be
> > > fine for people who have already used it.
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate Spargel API for 0.9

[Fabian Hueske <fh...@gmail.com>]

+1 for deprecating

2015-03-11 14:11 GMT+01:00 Kostas Tzoumas <kt...@apache.org>:

> +1 for deprecating and pointing people to Gelly
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 10 Mar 2015, at 22:02, Vasiliki Kalavri <va...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I would like your opinion on whether we should deprecate the Spargel
> API
> > in
> > > 0.9.
> > >
> > > Gelly doesn't depend on Spargel, it actually contains it -- we have
> > copied
> > > the relevant classes over. I think it would be a good idea to deprecate
> > > Spargel in 0.9, so that we can inform existing Spargel users that we'll
> > > eventually remove it.
> >
> > +1. I think it's OK as we want all Graph API users to go against Gelly in
> > the future. I don't even think that many people are using Spargel as we
> > never really promoted it heavily.
> >
> > > Also, I think the fact that we have 2 Graph APIs in the documentation
> > might
> > > be a bit confusing for newcomers. One might wonder why do we have them
> > both
> > > and when shall they use one over the other?
> > >
> > > It might be a good idea to add a note in the Spargel guide that would
> > > suggest to use Gelly instead and a corresponding note in the beginning
> of
> > > the Gelly guide to explain that Spargel is part of Gelly now. Or maybe
> a
> > > "Gelly or Spargel?" section. What do you think?
> >
> > +1, but I wouldn't hint to that prominently in the beginning. I think a
> > section about Spargel at the end, where you explain that it was our
> initial
> > take at graph processing and a link the respective (old) docs should be
> > fine for people who have already used it.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate Spargel API for 0.9

[Kostas Tzoumas <kt...@apache.org>]

+1 for deprecating and pointing people to Gelly

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> On 10 Mar 2015, at 22:02, Vasiliki Kalavri <va...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like your opinion on whether we should deprecate the Spargel API
> in
> > 0.9.
> >
> > Gelly doesn't depend on Spargel, it actually contains it -- we have
> copied
> > the relevant classes over. I think it would be a good idea to deprecate
> > Spargel in 0.9, so that we can inform existing Spargel users that we'll
> > eventually remove it.
>
> +1. I think it's OK as we want all Graph API users to go against Gelly in
> the future. I don't even think that many people are using Spargel as we
> never really promoted it heavily.
>
> > Also, I think the fact that we have 2 Graph APIs in the documentation
> might
> > be a bit confusing for newcomers. One might wonder why do we have them
> both
> > and when shall they use one over the other?
> >
> > It might be a good idea to add a note in the Spargel guide that would
> > suggest to use Gelly instead and a corresponding note in the beginning of
> > the Gelly guide to explain that Spargel is part of Gelly now. Or maybe a
> > "Gelly or Spargel?" section. What do you think?
>
> +1, but I wouldn't hint to that prominently in the beginning. I think a
> section about Spargel at the end, where you explain that it was our initial
> take at graph processing and a link the respective (old) docs should be
> fine for people who have already used it.

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate Spargel API for 0.9

[Ufuk Celebi <uc...@apache.org>]

On 10 Mar 2015, at 22:02, Vasiliki Kalavri <va...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I would like your opinion on whether we should deprecate the Spargel API in
> 0.9.
> 
> Gelly doesn't depend on Spargel, it actually contains it -- we have copied
> the relevant classes over. I think it would be a good idea to deprecate
> Spargel in 0.9, so that we can inform existing Spargel users that we'll
> eventually remove it.

+1. I think it's OK as we want all Graph API users to go against Gelly in the future. I don't even think that many people are using Spargel as we never really promoted it heavily.

> Also, I think the fact that we have 2 Graph APIs in the documentation might
> be a bit confusing for newcomers. One might wonder why do we have them both
> and when shall they use one over the other?
> 
> It might be a good idea to add a note in the Spargel guide that would
> suggest to use Gelly instead and a corresponding note in the beginning of
> the Gelly guide to explain that Spargel is part of Gelly now. Or maybe a
> "Gelly or Spargel?" section. What do you think?

+1, but I wouldn't hint to that prominently in the beginning. I think a section about Spargel at the end, where you explain that it was our initial take at graph processing and a link the respective (old) docs should be fine for people who have already used it.