[FLINK-14096][client] Merge NewClusterClient into ClusterClient

[tisonkun]

What is the purpose of the change

With the effort under FLINK-10392 we don't need the bridge class NewClusterClient any more. We can just merge NewClusterClient into ClusterClient towards an interface-ized ClusterClient.

cc @tillrohrmann @aljoscha @kl0u

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, Yarn/Mesos, 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 687341a (Wed Oct 16 08:24:36 UTC 2019)

Warnings:

• No documentation files were touched! Remember to keep the Flink docs up to date!

_{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

[flinkbot]

CI report:

• af3e828 : FAILURE Build
• 4a83419 : FAILURE Build
• 687341a : SUCCESS Build

[kl0u]

Hi @tisonkun, as I wrote in the JIRA, this is a big change and it is worth giving it some more visibility than just a sub-issue in a JIRA by discussing it in the user and dev mailing list first.

[tisonkun]

close as no consensus

[tisonkun]

Thanks for your attention @kl0u !

[tisonkun]

@flinkbot run travis

[kl0u]

Changes look good @tisonkun ! +1 to merge.

[tisonkun]

Hi @kl0u, thanks for your review. Could you help me merge this pull request? Study from ZK community they always prevent themselves from merging their own pull requests. I think it explicitly follows the best practice that involve fellow committers when pushing a commit without too much overhead :-)

[kl0u]

Hi @tisonkun, in the Flink community, committers merge their own PRs as long as they have at least one +1 from another committer. After merging this PR and when closing the JIRA issue please add a note to the Jira ticket with the commit hash on the master. As an example, have a look here https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-13959.

Let me know if you need any help :)

[tisonkun]

Thanks for your explanation @kl0u. Then I will try to merge this pull request myself :-)

[kl0u]

Thanks @tisonkun !