I had written a KIP a while back: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=100829459
Happy for someone to pick it up and drive it forward. Ismael On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 2:00 PM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > Hey folks -- > I think this is a good conversation. Given we plan to drop support for > Java 8 in 4.0 this seems like a good time to consider this change. Perhaps > we should file a JIRA ticket and maybe create a KIP to discuss? > > One thing we should consider however, is if we want some of these > operations to be asynchronous. I know I got into some tricky areas of Kafka > recently that assumed operations completed in a given order so it is good > to confirm such changes are safe. > > Looking forward to further discussion, > Justine > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 1:14 PM Philip Nee <philip...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > hey sean - a lot of uses of the Futures are in the public API and > therefore > > take voting/effort to be changed. i don't know any reason for > > intentionally avoiding the use of CompletableFuture, however, others > might > > know more than I do. > > > > thanks, > > P > > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 1:27 AM 신수웅(Sean Sin) <working...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Dear Apache Kakfa Developers, > > > > > > I'm 4-year SWE in South Korea. > > > I have some questions while watching Kafka Producer API. > > > > > > *Why Use "Future" and Not "CompletableFuture"?* > > > > > > In the case of "Future", blocking occurs when calling "*get()*", so I > > > thought "Computable Future" would be better when doing more > asynchronous > > > operations. > > > > > > I looked at the Java API document > > > < > > > > > > https://kafka.apache.org/36/javadoc/org/apache/kafka/common/KafkaFuture.html#thenApply(org.apache.kafka.common.KafkaFuture.BaseFunction) > > > > > > > based on the latest version, version 3.6.x. > > > > > > If you look at that version, you can see that the Future object > provides > > > the "toCompletionStage() "method, which can convert "KafkaFuture" to > > > "ComputableFuture". > > > > > > In response to this, I think that in the initial design decision > process, > > > we considered compatibility issues under JDK 1.8 and the level of > > knowledge > > > of the learning curve or developer when introducing ComputableFuture, > > but I > > > wonder if this is correct. > > > > > > In addition, I wonder if it is recommended to use the > > "toCompletionStage()" > > > method to produce more non-blocking if we assume JDK 1.8 or higher. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > Su-Ung Shin. > > > > > >
