Thanks ! How about a java folder package in the core then ? It's not a separate jar and it's still java?
Nonetheless I agree these are details. I just got really confused when trying to write my policy and would hope that confusion is not shared by others because it's a "client " class although should only reside within a broker On 7 Nov. 2017 9:04 pm, "Ismael Juma" <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: The location of the policies is fine. Note that the package _does not_ include clients in the name. If we ever have enough server side only code to merit a separate JAR, we can do that and it's mostly compatible (users would only have to update their build dependency). Generally, all public APIs going forward will be in Java. Ismael On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Stephane Maarek < steph...@simplemachines.com.au> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine (the > compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy to be > implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer) > It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code. > > Thanks! > Stephane > > Kind regards, > Stephane > > [image: Simple Machines] > > Stephane Maarek | Developer > > +61 416 575 980 > steph...@simplemachines.com.au > simplemachines.com.au > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010 > > On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Stephane, > > > > The vote on this KIP is on-going. > > > > I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and Mickael > would > > have to to not disagree with them. > > > > The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now. I don't > know > > the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that it's not > > ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the > situation > > with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side extensions > > points which users can provide their own implementations of. I don't know > > whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala and java > > code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if these > > server-side policies were moved. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tom > > > > On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek < > steph...@simplemachines.com. > > au > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to implement a > > > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy > > > (and Alter, etc...) > > > These policies would have some most basic parameter to check for > > > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that end users > can > > > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the interface > so > > > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP > > > > > > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress so I can > > > propose my KIP. > > > > > > Finally, have the packages been discussed? > > > I find it extremely awkward to have the current CreateTopicPolicy part > of > > > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next classes > you're > > > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or > > server/policy. > > > Unless I'm missing something? > > > > > > Thanks for driving this > > > Stephane > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Stephane > > > > > > [image: Simple Machines] > > > > > > Stephane Maarek | Developer > > > > > > +61 416 575 980 > > > steph...@simplemachines.com.au > > > simplemachines.com.au > > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010 > > > > > > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and although > > > there > > > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any feedback from > > > > committers would be appreciated. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <eco...@uk.ibm.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the protocol) it now > > > > > supersedes KIP-170 > > > > > > > > > > +1 non-binding > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Edoardo Comar > > > > > > > > > > IBM Message Hub > > > > > > > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > > > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21 > > > > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to replace > > the > > > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy interface that > > also > > > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in the > > > AdminClient. > > > > > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki. > > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A- > > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_ > > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r= > > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m= > tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT- > > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp > > D9517uJkCgrCk&e= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your time. > > > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
