Harsha -- Thanks for clarifying but I had noticed that and still gave those suggestions.
Calling a VOTE thread on a discussion when there are varied viewpoints is never something this community has resorted to. The optics of it force binary decision making when in reality there are several tradeoffs to consider (Ewen summarized those really well in his recent email). I think a discussion on each of the points is worthwhile which is something a conversation would allow us to do. On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:15 AM Ewen Cheslack-Postava <e...@confluent.io> wrote: > Perhaps in the future we can use a [POLL] or similar? This confused a lot > of folks because they thought a VOTE was being called on KIP-80 when it > wasn't. (Even if we say shame on them for not reading the body in full, the > title caught me as well.) > > -Ewen > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Harsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io> > wrote: > > > Neha, > > As I stated in my earlier email, this is an interest check > > vote thread and, not a KIP vote thread, to gather input from users > mailing > > list if there is any interest for REST server to be part of Kafka. Also, > > this has been noted in the discuss thread that we should make an interest > > vote thread to include users list. > > > > Thanks, > > Harsha > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:51 PM Neha Narkhede <n...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > -1 > > > > > > Let me make an observation and then state my reasons. > > > > > > First, I am a little surprised to see this vote thread as I think it > is a > > > bit premature. As a community, we've consistently invested in good > > > communication. If there are differing opinions on a DISCUSS thread, we > > > generally gather the community for a KIP call/ in-person meeting. If > > > required, meet several times. Then send around notes and finally, call > a > > > vote. I've observed us resolve many issues and reach better decisions > as > > a > > > community by doing that. We've given higher bandwidth communication a > > > chance and that has paid off. I would've liked to see us do the same > here > > > and would still offer the time to do so. > > > > > > There is a ton of context involved to understand the concerns of those > of > > > us who have been actively contributing to Kafka for 6 years -- We've > > worked > > > very hard to keep Kafka simple, that is a big reason for its adoption > and > > > success so far. We've built a thoughtful community that engages in > > > constructive communication versus reaching knee-jerk decisions. I see > the > > > latter happening here and would urge the new members to invest more > time > > in > > > sharing ideas before voting. > > > > > > Let me state the reasons for my vote since the thread was started: > > > > > > - REST proxy does not cover a meaningful % of usage on Kafka. When we > > ran a > > > poll, it turned out that 50% users want non-java clients, 46% ish > wanted > > > the java clients and the rest were interested in other protocols (REST, > > > MQTT, AMQP). > > > - We have tried this approach and it did not work. Our objective is to > > > deliver high-quality software and build an agile community. We failed > at > > > both those objectives with clients and have decided to instead invest > in > > > the ecosystem and not bloat Apache Kafka. > > > - The Kafka ecosystem is large, thriving, open-source and non-Apache. > > That > > > is working, why do we think this should be an exception? Never change > > > something that works right? To me, this already is a big reason why the > > > Apache argument doesn't make sense. > > > > > > Regarding the governance worries -- If you are worried about > governance, > > > why not first try to contribute, hit roadblocks around project > direction > > > and then raise concerns around governance? Doing that prematurely is > > > solving a hypothetical problem and we need to invest time in solving > real > > > problems. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 5:30 PM Haohui Mai <ricet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > In my personal experience Kafka REST server is one of essential parts > > on > > > > building a reliable real-time pipeline. It's okay to keep the code > > > > reasonably separated from the core, but would appreciate to see some > > > > official supports for the REST servers from the Kafka community. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Haohui > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 4:42 PM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > -1 > > > > > > > > > > I think it's good to avoid adding non-essential items to the Apache > > > Kafka > > > > > project so that it can continue evolving at a fast pace. Since a > REST > > > > > server can be naturally implemented as an external project, I > believe > > > the > > > > > disadvantages of including it outweigh the advantages. > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Harsha Chintalapani < > > ka...@harsha.io > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > We are proposing to have a REST Server as part of > > Apache > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > to provide producer/consumer/admin APIs. We Strongly believe > having > > > > > > REST server functionality with Apache Kafka will help a lot of > > users. > > > > > > Here is the KIP that Mani Kumar wrote > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > > > 80:+Kafka+Rest+Server. > > > > > > There is a discussion thread in dev list that had differing > > opinions > > > on > > > > > > whether to include REST server in Apache Kafka or not. You can > read > > > > more > > > > > > about that in this thread > > > > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/kafka-dev/201610. > > mbox/%3CCAMVt_ > > > > > > aymqeudm39znsxgktpdde46sowmqhsxop-+jmbcuv7...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a VOTE thread to check interest in the > community > > > for > > > > > > adding REST Server implementation in Apache Kafka. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Harsha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > Neha > > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Ewen > -- Thanks, Neha
