> > > > * re: naming, can we avoid including 'source' in the command name? even > if > > that's all it supports today, I don't think we want to restrict it. While > > we only *require* this for source offsets, I think for users it will, > > long-term, be way more natural to consider connect offsets generally and > > not need to know how to drop down to consumer offsets for sink > connectors. > > In fact, in an ideal world, many users/operators may not even > *understand* > > consumer offsets deeply while still being generally familiar with connect > > offsets. We can always include an error message for now if they try to do > > something with a sink connector (which we presumably need to detect > anyway > > to correctly handle source connectors). > > > > ack > > Sorry about bikeshedding, but: I think a general name for something that has limited functionality is very confusing (and we've seen this play out before). Why not name the tool to describe what it does and change its name if we change the functionality?
> >
