Ok, will cook something up by the end of the weekend. Op wo 17 jan. 2018 om 18:36 schreef Xavier Léauté <xav...@confluent.io>:
> 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 > > >
