Hi Steven, do you think you'll get a chance to address the points Ismael made? It'd be great to get this change into 1.1.
Thanks! Xavier On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:20 PM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Hi Steven, > > As a general rule, we don't freeze KIPs after the vote passes. It's > reasonably common for things to come up during code review, for example. If > we think of improvements, we shouldn't refrain from doing them because of > of the vote. If we do minor changes after the KIP passes, we usually send a > follow-up to the vote thread and assume it's all good if no objections are > raised. Only significant changes require a vote from scratch (this tends to > be rare). More inline. > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Steven Aerts <steven.ae...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > 1. The KIP seems to rely on the pull request for some of the details of > > the > > > proposal. Generally, the KIP should stand on its own. > > > > Looking back at what I wrote in the KIP, I agree that its style is too > > descriptive > > and relies too much on the content of the PR. > > I will keep it in mind, and try to do better next time. But as the > > voting is over I > > assume I better not alter it any more. > > > > I think we should fix this. At a minimum, the public interfaces section > should include the signature of interfaces and methods being added (as I > said before). > > > 2. Do we really need to deprecate `Function`? This will add build noise > to > > > any library that builds with 1.1+ but also wants to support 0.11 and > 1.0. > > > > No we don't. It is all a matter of how fast we can and want an api > tagged > > with > > @Evolving, to evolve. > > As we know, that it will evolve again when KIP-118 (dropping java 7) is > > implemented. > > > > For widely used APIs like the AdminClient, it's better to be conservative. > We can look at deprecations once we drop Java 7 so that we do them all at > once. > > > > > 3. `FunctionInterface` is a bit of a clunky name. Due to lambdas, users > > > don't have to type the name themselves, so maybe it's fine as it is. An > > > alternative would be `BaseFunction` or something like that. > > > > I share a little bit your feeling, as the best name for me would just be > > `Function`. But that one is taken. > > > > Yeah, it's a case of choosing the second best option. > > Ismael >
