+1 (non-binding) I have some concerns on the potential for complexity and testing requirement, but in general having a client interoperable with two broker version would be great for many users. -------------------------------------------------- Edoardo Comar IBM MessageHub eco...@uk.ibm.com IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
IBM United Kingdom Limited Registered in England and Wales with number 741598 Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU From: Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> To: dev@kafka.apache.org Date: 08/12/2016 00:42 Subject: Re: [VOTE]: KIP-97: The client compatibility KIP +1 (binding) On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I heard that the VOTE and DISCUSS threads for the KIP-97 discussion > appeared to be in the same email thread for some people using gmail. So > I'm reposting in hopes of getting a separate email thread this time for > those viewers. :) > > I'd like to start voting on KIP-97 > ( https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-97%3A+Improved+Kafka+Client+RPC+Compatibility+Policy > ). > > The discussion thread can be found here: > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg60955.html > > Thanks for your feedback. > > best, > Colin McCabe -- Gwen Shapira Product Manager | Confluent 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap Follow us: Twitter | blog Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
