[FLINK-15130] Drop 'RequiredParameters' and 'Options'

[snuyanzin]

What is the purpose of the change

The PR drops deprecated classes
flink-java/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/java/utils/Option.java
flink-java/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/java/utils/OptionType.java
flink-java/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/java/utils/RequiredParameters.java
flink-java/src/main/java/org/apache/flink/api/java/utils/RequiredParametersException.java
flink-java/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/api/java/utils/OptionsTest.java
flink-java/src/test/java/org/apache/flink/api/java/utils/RequiredParametersTest.java

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): ( no)
• The public API, i.e., is any changed class annotated with @Public(Evolving): ( no)
• The serializers: ( no)
• The runtime per-record code paths (performance sensitive): ( no)
• Anything that affects deployment or recovery: JobManager (and its components), Checkpointing, Kubernetes/Yarn, ZooKeeper: (no)
• The S3 file system connector: (no)

Documentation

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

[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 2976dd3 (Fri Jan 21 12:11:18 UTC 2022)

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.

Details

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

[flinkbot]

CI report:

• 3160a51 Azure: SUCCESS

Bot commands

The @flinkbot bot supports the following commands:

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

[snuyanzin]

@flinkbot run azure

[RocMarshal]

Nice~. @snuyanzin
LGTM +1. （non-binding.）

[XComp]

@snuyanzin The change looks good to me, too. May you rebase the PR. It seems that there was a junit5 migration for those tests that are conflicting now?

[snuyanzin]

Thanks for the feedback, rebased

[XComp]

Thanks for this change @snuyanzin and @RocMarshal for reviewing this PR. I'm going to go ahead and merge the change.