Hi Tom, Thanks for the KIP. Is this meant to superseed KIP-170 ? If so, one of our key requirements was to be able to access the topics/partitions list from the policy, so an administrator could enforce a partition limit for example.
Also instead of simply having the Java Principal object, could we have the KafkaPrincipal ? So policies could take advantage of custom KafkaPrincipal object (KIP-189). On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ted, > > Thanks for the feedback! > > bq. topic.action.policy.class.name >> >> Since the policy would cover more than one action, how about using actions >> for the second word ? >> > > Good point, done. > > >> For TopicState interface, the abstract modifier for its methods are not >> needed. >> > > Fixed. > > bq. KIP-113 >> >> Mind adding more to the above bullet ? >> > > I guess I intended to elaborate on this, but forgot to. I guess the > question is: > > a) Whether AlterReplicaDir should be covered by a policy, and if so > b) should it be covered by this policy. > > Thinking about it some more I don't think it should be covered by this > policy, so I have removed this bullet. Please shout if you disagree. > > >> bq. If this KIP is accepted for Kafka 1.1.0 this removal could happen in >> Kafka 3.0.0 >> >> There would be no Kafka 2.0 ? >> > > As I understand it, a deprecation has to exist for a complete major version > number cycle before the feature can be removed. So deprecations that are > added in 1.x (x>0) have to remain in all 2.y before removal in 3. Did I > understand the policy wrong?
