> If you create a new `ProducerRecord` you would not pass in a `Headers` > object but a `Iterable<Header>`? > > And for `ConsumerRecord` you just get a `Headers` object back and don't > need to worry about the concrete implementation?
You are right. I'd give a bad case :( For another reason, could we avoid using a mutable object to be the response type? ConsumerRecord and ProducerRecord have a good chance to be immutable if we can remove setters from Headers. On 2020/08/18 20:42:59, "Matthias J. Sax" <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks for the KIP. However, I am not sure for what use-case you would > need to implement the `Headers` interface? > > If you create a new `ProducerRecord` you would not pass in a `Headers` > object but a `Iterable<Header>`? > > And for `ConsumerRecord` you just get a `Headers` object back and don't > need to worry about the concrete implementation? > > > -Matthias > > > On 8/18/20 3:39 AM, Chia-Ping Tsai wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I would like to start a discussion on KIP-658: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/-DJ4CQ > > > > KIP-658 plans to deprecate all setters of Headers and provide default > > implementation. The benefit of this KIP are shown below. > > > > 1. Users don't need to implement those setters which are not used by kafka. > > 2. open a room to refactor Headers in next major (for example, a pojo > > Headers) > > > > feedback is welcome!!! > > > > ---- > > chia-ping > > > >
