flink-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vasiliki Kalavri <vasilikikala...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Spargel vs. Gelly
Date Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:41:36 GMT
Hey!

We've had this discussion before actually [1] and we also have a JIRA to
deprecate Spargel [2] :-)
I agree that we should keep Spargel deprecated until Gelly is out of
staging.

Cheers,
-Vasia.

[1]: https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@flink.apache.org/msg01218.html
[2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-1693

On 10 April 2015 at 12:22, Stephan Ewen <sewen@apache.org> wrote:

> I would remove Spargel at some point in time, but not until Gelly is out of
> staging.
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Ufuk Celebi <uce@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > currently we have two vertex-centric graph APIs: Spargel and Gelly. I
> want
> > to discuss whether we shall
> > 1) keep Spargel as a public API as it is, or
> > 2) deprecate (and remove) it.
> >
> > In my understanding, Spargel was a proof-of-concept, which stuck around.
> > It is very stable, but limited in functionality. Gelly provides a
> superset
> > of Spargel's functionality and a high-level library of graph algorithms.
> > The vertex-centric iterations actually wrap Spargel.
> >
> > I am in favour of 2):
> >
> > + Less confusing and less work to have two APIs for the same thing (we
> > have to communicate this, document it etc.)
> > + Gelly is actively maintained and getting a lot of contributions
> > - Spargel users will have to move to Gelly at some point in time (I think
> > this will happen anyways and it should be straight forward)
> >
> > The Spargel internal code will probably stick around as part of Gelly.
> The
> > question is whether we want to have two public APIs for this.
> >
> > – Ufuk
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message