Hi Siddhartha, It seems prudent to refocus this KIP on promoting the Bytes API to be public and then file a separate KIP for the Time API. It's more overhead, but it unblock Bytes since Time seems to need a little more work.
Thanks, Kirk On Tue, Dec 16, 2025, at 3:07 AM, Siddhartha Devineni wrote: > Hi all, > > Thank you for the feedback. > > @Sean, I understand your concern about "Time" not being suitable for a > public API in its current state. > Could you elaborate on what specific issues make it a "dumping ground"? > > Regarding your suggestion to exclude the Streams constructors accepting > "Time" from the public API - I want to clarify the implications: > The constructor KafkaStreams(Topology, Properties, Time) is currently > public and has been available for several releases. > Making it non-public or removing it would be a breaking change that would > affect any users currently using this constructor. > > What do you have in mind? > > 1. Deprecate the constructor now and remove it in a future major version, or > 2. Make it package-private (which would break existing code immediately)? > > @Kirk, Thank you for pointing that out. > You're absolutely right that making "Time" public would require making > "Timer" public as well, since Time.timer() returns Timer objects. > This does expand the scope considerably. > > Given this expanding scope and Sean's concerns about the Time API design, > would it make sense to split this KIP into two parts or create a > separate KIP for the "Time" API and its implications? > > Best regards, > Siddhartha > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 6:18 AM Kirk True <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Sean: which parts of the Time API are the most clunky? The waitForFuture() > > and waitObject() methods seem like they could be moved elsewhere, but the > > others seem OK. > > > > Siddhartha: because the Time API creates Timer objects, we'd need to > > promote Timer to the public API, too. > > > > Thanks, > > Kirk > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2025, at 7:12 AM, Sean Quah via dev wrote: > > > Hi Siddhartha, > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! I'm okay making `Bytes` public. However, the `Time` > > > interface is a bit of a dumping ground for time-related things and I > > would > > > not be in favor of making it public in its current state. > > > Is it possible to exclude the streams constructors accepting `Time`s from > > > the public API instead? > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Sean Quah > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 1:53 PM Siddhartha Devineni < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello Kafka Community, > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion on KIP-1247, which proposes to > > > > officially make the "Bytes" and "Time" utils classes part of Kafka's > > public > > > > API. > > > > > > > > *KIP Link:* > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1247%3A+Make+Bytes+and+Time+utils+classes+part+of+the+public+API > > > > > > > > *Background:* > > > > > > > > Currently, "org.apache.kafka.common.utils.Bytes" and > > > > "org.apache.kafka.common.utils.Time" are exposed through numerous > > public > > > > API interfaces in Kafka Streams and other components, yet they are not > > > > officially designated as public API since the utils package is not > > included > > > > in Javadoc generation. > > > > > > > > This creates confusion for users who cannot determine if these classes > > are > > > > officially supported, and causes broken Javadoc references. > > > > > > > > *Proposal:* > > > > > > > > This KIP proposes to: > > > > > > > > 1. Include "Bytes" and "Time" in Javadoc generation, officially > > making > > > > them part of the public API > > > > 2. Move other internal utility classes to an "internals" subpackage > > to > > > > prevent similar issues in the future > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Impact:*This change has no compatibility impact - all classes remain > > in > > > > their current locations and no user code changes are required. > > > > > > > > You can find more details in the attached KIP link. > > > > Looking forward to your thoughts. > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > Best regards. > > > > Siddhartha > > > > > > > > > >
