Hi Jason, Yes, 0.9 clients should still work with 0.10 brokers.
Thanks, Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote: > +users > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > Hey Ismael, > > > > Thanks for bringing this up again. Just a quick question: if we do #1, > > then there's no way that a user binary could work against both 0.9 and > 0.10 > > of kafka-clients, right? I'm not sure if that is much of a problem, but > may > > cause a little pain if a user somehow depends transitively on different > > versions. Excluding this change, would we otherwise expect > > kafka-clients-0.9 to work with an 0.10 broker? I thought the changes for > > KIP-32 continued to support the old message format, but I could be wrong. > > > > -Jason > > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > >> Coming back to this, see below. > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > 1. For subscribe() and assign(), change the parameter type to > >> collection as > >> > planned in the KIP. This is at least source-compatible, so as long as > >> users > >> > compile against the updated release, there shouldn't be any problems. > >> > > >> > >> I think this one seems to be the least controversial part of the > proposal. > >> And I agree with this suggestion. > >> > >> 2. Instead of changing the signatures of the current pause/resume/seek > >> > APIs, maybe we can overload them. This keeps compatibility and > supports > >> the > >> > more convenient collection usage, but the cost is some API bloat. > >> > > >> > >> It seems like there is no clear winner, so I am OK with this too. > >> > >> Given the release plan for 0.10.0.0 that is being voted on, I think we > >> should make a decision on this one way or another very soon. > >> > >> Ismael > >> > > > > >
