[FLINK-24383][streaming] Remove the deprecated SlidingTimeWindows, TumblingTimeWindows, BaseAlignedWindowAssigner.

[RocMarshal]

What is the purpose of the change

Remove the deprecated SlidingTimeWindows, TumblingTimeWindows, BaseAlignedWindowAssigner.

Brief change log

• Remove the deprecated SlidingTimeWindows, TumblingTimeWindows, BaseAlignedWindowAssigner.

Verifying this change

This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage.

Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts:

• Dependencies (does it add or upgrade a dependency): (yes / no)
• The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): (yes / no)
• The serializers: (yes / no / don't know)
• The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): (yes / no / don't know)
• Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: (yes / no / don't know)
• The S3 file system connector: (yes / no / don't know)

Documentation

• Does this pull request introduce a new feature? (yes / no)
• If yes, how is the feature documented? (not applicable / docs / JavaDocs / not documented)

[flinkbot]

CI report:

• 476986c Azure: SUCCESS

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot run azure re-run the last Azure build

[flinkbot]

Thanks a lot for your contribution to the Apache Flink project. I'm the @flinkbot. I help the community
to review your pull request. We will use this comment to track the progress of the review.

Automated Checks

Last check on commit 476986c (Fri Oct 22 12:26:44 UTC 2021)

Warnings:

• No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!
• This pull request references an unassigned Jira ticket. According to the code contribution guide, tickets need to be assigned before starting with the implementation work.

_{Mention the bot in a comment to re-run the automated checks.}

Review Progress

• ❓ 1. The [description] looks good.
• ❓ 2. There is [consensus] that the contribution should go into to Flink.
• ❓ 3. Needs [attention] from.
• ❓ 4. The change fits into the overall [architecture].
• ❓ 5. Overall code [quality] is good.

Please see the Pull Request Review Guide for a full explanation of the review process.

The Bot is tracking the review progress through labels. Labels are applied according to the order of the review items. For consensus, approval by a Flink committer of PMC member is required

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

• @flinkbot approve description to approve one or more aspects (aspects: description, consensus, architecture and quality)
• @flinkbot approve all to approve all aspects
• @flinkbot approve-until architecture to approve everything until architecture
• @flinkbot attention @username1 [@username2 ..] to require somebody's attention
• @flinkbot disapprove architecture to remove an approval you gave earlier

[RocMarshal]

Hi, @twalthr @xccui @klion26 @AHeise Could you help me to check this pr ? Thank you.

[AHeise]

I'll check if I find a good reviewer. Not sure why this PR has not popped up on my radar before.

[AHeise]

From my perspective this looks good. I also like to get rid of old code eventually.
I'd still like to wait for a review of someone that was involved in the deprecation.

[RocMarshal]

From my perspective this looks good. I also like to get rid of old code eventually. I'd still like to wait for a review of someone that was involved in the deprecation.

@AHeise Thanks a lot for your review.
@kl0u @aljoscha Please let me know what do you think of it.
Looking forward to your reply.

[dawidwys]

I see no issues with removing those classes (actually they were deprecated in 1.0.0!). They are marked PublicEvolving and moreover, I could not find the classes that they are supposed to work with according to one of the exceptions.

So +1 for removing those classes.

[AHeise]

Thanks again. Merging.