Hi everyone, I just wanted to highlight to committers that although this KIP has three non-binding votes, it currently lacks any binding votes: Any feedback would be appreciated.
Cheers, Tom On 7 November 2017 at 20:42, Stephane Maarek <steph...@simplemachines.com.au > wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
