Hi Mickael, I got it. So I'll update the KIP with the ConnectorPlugin interface having version() and config() methods.
Thanks, Mario Il giorno gio 5 feb 2026 alle ore 18:24 Mickael Maison < [email protected]> ha scritto: > Hi, > > Connectors, transformations, predicates are typically referred as > "connector plugins". > On the other hand ConnectRestExtension, > ConnectorClientConfigOverridePolicy and ConfigProvider are "worker > plugins". > Yes it's confusing! The terms connectors and plugins are really overused. > > Mickael > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 5:58 PM Mario Fiore Vitale via dev > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Otherwise we could have a ConnectorPlugin interface (putting aside the > > worker plugins for now as they don't have a config() method) bringing > > config() and version() that all plugins interface would implement? > > > > So If I get it correctly, you are proposing to have a single interface > > (ConnectorPlugin) that replaces the Versioned and the > > ConfigSpecifier, merging them. > > Sounds reasonable. In that case, I'll use a more generic name like > > *ConnectPlugin > > *since it will be used not only for connectors but also for > transformation, > > predicates, and converters. > > > > Mickael, Chris, WDYT? > > > > > I like the ConnectorPlugin interface idea. Mario, would that suit your > use > > case? > > > > The result is the same, so it is good. > > > > Thanks, > > Mario. > > > > Il giorno gio 5 feb 2026 alle ore 16:53 Chris Egerton < > > [email protected]> ha scritto: > > > > > I agree that ConfigSpecifier is a little clunky, but IMO Configured is > a > > > little too be similar to the existing Configurable interface. > > > > > > I like the ConnectorPlugin interface idea. Mario, would that suit your > use > > > case? > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2026, 10:24 Mickael Maison <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Mario, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > > > > > > Today the mechanism to discover plugins and their configurations is > > > > the REST API. > > > > You can retrieve the list of all installed connectors plugins > > > > (connectors, transformations, predicates) via GET > > > > /connector-plugins?connectorsOnly=false > > > > You can get their configurations via GET > > > /connector-plugins/{plugin}/config > > > > > > > > That said, I'm not against bringing consistency to the plugin APIs, > > > > especially as the drawbacks are really minor. > > > > In terms of naming I'm not a huge fan of ConfigSpecifier. I don't > have > > > > a great alternative to suggest. > > > > To follow the naming of Versioned, maybe we can consider Configured? > > > > Otherwise we could have a ConnectorPlugin interface (putting aside > the > > > > worker plugins for now as they don't have a config() method) bringing > > > > config() and version() that all plugins interface would implement? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mickael > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 9:48 AM Mario Fiore Vitale via dev > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > > > Just a ping to bring the discussion up. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Mario. > > > > > > > > > > Il giorno mar 27 gen 2026 alle ore 09:17 Mario Fiore Vitale < > > > > > [email protected]> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. I updated the wrong Javadoc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any other comments from anybody? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Mario. > > > > > > > > > > > > Il giorno ven 23 gen 2026 alle ore 07:31 Chris Egerton < > > > > > > [email protected]> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Mario, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks for the updates, especially the comprehensive > compatibility > > > > > >> section! > > > > > >> The KIP looks good to me, though you may want to double-check > the > > > > example > > > > > >> Javadocs on ConnectRestExtension::config > > > > > >> and ConnectorClientConfigOverridePolicy::config :) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Chris > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 5:54 AM Mario Fiore Vitale via dev < > > > > > >> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Hi Chris, thanks for your valuable feedback! > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > 1. (Minor) The Javadoc for HeaderConverter::config is a > little > > > > > >> > strange--is > > > > > >> > it meant to refer to "this set of header converters" or > should it > > > > just > > > > > >> be > > > > > >> > "this header converter"? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > This was just taken from the current source. But I agree that > it > > > > should > > > > > >> be > > > > > >> > "this header converter". > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > For example, there's the obvious case > > > > > >> > where a plugin instantiates an object with a left-hand-type of > > > > > >> > ConfigSpecifier in its constructor. That plugin would be > > > > incompatible > > > > > >> with > > > > > >> > older versions of Connect. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Do you have an example of this? As you said, it's unlikely > that > > > this > > > > > >> would > > > > > >> > occur in practice, also to me. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > If a plugin explicitly > > > > > >> > implements ConfigSpecifier, would that break compatibility? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > In this case, it should. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > If a plugin > > > > > >> > doesn't explicitly implement ConfigSpecifier, would that break > > > > > >> > compatibility? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > This should not break it. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > These are the two cases that come to mind immediately but if > > > > > >> > any others occur to you feel free to document them as well. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > No other cases come to mind. I'll update the compatibility > section > > > > with > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > forward compatibility consideration. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > There's also the pluggable ConnectRestExtension > > > > > >> > and ConnectorClientConfigOverridePolicy interfaces. Neither > > > > currently > > > > > >> > exposes a config method but it wouldn't be out of the > question to > > > > add > > > > > >> one > > > > > >> > now to them with a default implementation that returns an > empty > > > > > >> ConfigDef. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Well, I would say that since they are `Configurable`, I could > > > expect > > > > > >> that > > > > > >> > maybe in some future there could also be the possibility to > > > declare > > > > a > > > > > >> > specific configuration. > > > > > >> > So your proposal to add it and implement it as a default seems > > > good > > > > to > > > > > >> me. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Regards, > > > > > >> > Mario. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Il giorno gio 22 gen 2026 alle ore 04:33 Chris Egerton < > > > > > >> > [email protected]> ha scritto: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Hi Mario, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks for the KIP! My thoughts: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > 1. (Minor) The Javadoc for HeaderConverter::config is a > little > > > > > >> > strange--is > > > > > >> > > it meant to refer to "this set of header converters" or > should > > > it > > > > > >> just be > > > > > >> > > "this header converter"? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > 2. The compatibility problem with Connect is always gnarly. > The > > > > > >> section > > > > > >> > on > > > > > >> > > backward compatibility is very well done in that it > demonstrates > > > > with > > > > > >> > > certainty that older plugins will be able to run smoothly on > > > newer > > > > > >> > versions > > > > > >> > > of the Connect runtime. However, there's also the question > of > > > > whether > > > > > >> > newer > > > > > >> > > plugins (compiled against a future version of the Connect > API > > > > with the > > > > > >> > > change proposed in this KIP) will continue to be compatible > with > > > > older > > > > > >> > > versions of the Connect runtime. For example, there's the > > > obvious > > > > case > > > > > >> > > where a plugin instantiates an object with a left-hand-type > of > > > > > >> > > ConfigSpecifier in its constructor. That plugin would be > > > > incompatible > > > > > >> > with > > > > > >> > > older versions of Connect. It's unlikely that this would > occur > > > in > > > > > >> > practice > > > > > >> > > and even if it does, I think it's fine to accept that as a > > > > tradeoff. > > > > > >> > > However, it'd be nice to see the compatibility section > explore > > > > exactly > > > > > >> > what > > > > > >> > > would render a plugin compiled against the newer Connect API > > > > > >> incompatible > > > > > >> > > with older versions of the Connect runtime. If a plugin > > > explicitly > > > > > >> > > implements ConfigSpecifier, would that break compatibility? > If a > > > > > >> plugin > > > > > >> > > doesn't explicitly implement ConfigSpecifier, would that > break > > > > > >> > > compatibility? These are the two cases that come to mind > > > > immediately > > > > > >> but > > > > > >> > if > > > > > >> > > any others occur to you feel free to document them as well. > This > > > > > >> coverage > > > > > >> > > can also help guide us in how to document the interface > if/when > > > we > > > > > >> add it > > > > > >> > > to make it clear to plugin developers how to avoid rendering > > > their > > > > > >> work > > > > > >> > > accidentally incompatibile with older versions of the > Connect > > > > runtime. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > 3. There's also the pluggable ConnectRestExtension > > > > > >> > > and ConnectorClientConfigOverridePolicy interfaces. Neither > > > > currently > > > > > >> > > exposes a config method but it wouldn't be out of the > question > > > to > > > > add > > > > > >> one > > > > > >> > > now to them with a default implementation that returns an > empty > > > > > >> > ConfigDef. > > > > > >> > > Thoughts? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Cheers, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Chris > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 10:33 AM Mario Fiore Vitale via dev > < > > > > > >> > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > I would like to start a discussion on KIP-1273: Improve > > > Connect > > > > > >> > > > configurable components discoverability [1]. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Summary: > > > > > >> > > > The idea is to introduce a common ConfigSpecifier > interface > > > for > > > > > >> Kafka > > > > > >> > > > Connect components that expose configuration metadata. By > > > > unifying > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > existing config() method across connectors, converters, > > > > > >> > transformations, > > > > > >> > > > and predicates under a single contract, it simplifies > > > component > > > > > >> > > discovery, > > > > > >> > > > reduces code duplication and enables uniform tooling for > > > > > >> configuration > > > > > >> > > > introspection, validation, documentation, and UI > generation. > > > The > > > > > >> change > > > > > >> > > is > > > > > >> > > > fully backward compatible and requires no modifications to > > > > existing > > > > > >> > > > component implementations. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > [1] > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1273%3A+Improve+Connect+configurable+components+discoverability > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Regards, > > > > > >> > > > Mario > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
