Okay makes sense thanks! As you said maybe in the future (or now), it's worth
starting a server java dependency jar that's not called "client".
Probably a debate for another day (
Tom, crossing fingers to see more votes on this! Good stuff
On 7/11/17, 9:51 pm, "Ismael Juma" <isma...@gmail.com on behalf of
ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
The idea is that you only depend on a Java jar. The core jar includes the
Scala version in the name and you should not care about that when
implementing a Java interface.
Ismael
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Stephane Maarek <
steph...@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
> 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
