+1 (binding)
Thanks for the KIP, Andy!
Regards,
Rajini
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 1:18 PM Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Thank you for the improvement.
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 3:53 AM Andy Coates <a...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > So voting currently stands on:
> >
> > Binding:
> > +1 Matthias,
> > +1 Colin
> >
> > Non-binding:
> > +1 Thomas Becker
> > +1 Satish Guggana
> > +1 Ryan Dolan
> >
> > So we're still 1 binding vote short. :(
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 23:08, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the details Colin and Andy.
> > >
> > > My indent was not to block the KIP, but it seems to be a fair question
> > > to ask.
> > >
> > > I talked to Ismael offline about it and understand his reasoning better
> > > now. If we don't deprecate `abstract AdminClient` class, it seems
> > > reasonable to not deprecate the corresponding factory methods either.
> > >
> > >
> > > +1 (binding) on the current proposal
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> > >
> > > On 7/3/19 5:03 AM, Andy Coates wrote:
> > > > Matthias,
> > > >
> > > > I was referring to platforms such as spark or flink that support
> > multiple
> > > > versions of the Kafka clients. Ismael mentioned this higher up on the
> > > > thread.
> > > >
> > > > I'd prefer this KIP didn't get held up over somewhat unrelated
> change,
> > > i.e.
> > > > should the factory method be on the interface or utility class.
> > Surely,
> > > > now would be a great time to change this if we wanted, but we can
> also
> > > > change this later if we need to. In the interest of moving forward,
> > can
> > > I
> > > > propose we leave the factory methods as they are in the KIP?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 17:14, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, at 09:14, Colin McCabe wrote:
> > > >>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019, at 23:30, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> > > >>>> Not sure, if I understand the argument?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Why would anyone need to support multiple client side versions?
> > > >>>> Clients/brokers are forward/backward compatible anyway.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> When you're using many different libraries, it is helpful if they
> > don't
> > > >>> impose tight constraints on what versions their dependencies are.
> > > >>> Otherwise you can easily get in a situation where the constraints
> > can't
> > > >>> be satisfied.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Also, if one really supports multiple client side versions, won't
> > they
> > > >>>> use multiple shaded dependencies for different versions?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Shading the Kafka client doesn't really work, because of how we use
> > > >> reflection.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Last, it's possible to suppress warnings (at least in Java).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> But not in Scala. So that does not help (for example), Scala
> users.
> > > >>
> > > >> I meant to write "Spark users" here.
> > > >>
> > > >> C.
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I agree that in general we should be using deprecation when
> > > >>> appropriate, regardless of the potential annoyances to users. But
> > I'm
> > > >>> not sure deprecating this method is really worth it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> best,
> > > >>> Colin
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Can you elaborate?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> IMHO, just adding a statement to JavaDocs is a little weak, and at
> > > some
> > > >>>> point, we need to deprecate those methods anyway if we ever want
> to
> > > >>>> remove them. The earlier we deprecate them, the earlier we can
> > remove
> > > >> them.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -Matthias
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 7/1/19 4:22 AM, Andy Coates wrote:
> > > >>>>> Done. I've not deprecated the factory methods on the AdminClient
> > for
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>> same reason the AdminClient itself is not deprecated, i.e. this
> > > >> would cause
> > > >>>>> unavoidable warnings for libraries / platforms that support
> > multiple
> > > >>>>> versions of Kafka. However, I think we add a note to the Java
> docs
> > of
> > > >>>>> `AdminClient` to indicate that its use, going forward, is
> > > >> discouraged in
> > > >>>>> favour of the new `Admin` interface and explain why its not been
> > > >>>>> deprecated, but that it may/will be removed in a future version.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Regarding factory methods on interfaces: there seems to be some
> > > >> difference
> > > >>>>> of opinion here. I'm not sure of the best approach to revolve
> this.
> > > >> At the
> > > >>>>> moment the KIP has factory methods on the new `Admin` interface,
> > > >> rather
> > > >>>>> than some utility class. I prefer the utility class, but this
> isn't
> > > >> inline
> > > >>>>> with the patterns in the code base and some of the core team have
> > > >> expressed
> > > >>>>> they'd prefer to continue to have the factory methods on the
> > > >> interface.
> > > >>>>> I'm happy with this if others are.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Andy
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 23:21, Matthias J. Sax <
> > matth...@confluent.io
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> @Andy:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> What about the factory methods of `AdminClient` class? Should
> they
> > > >> be
> > > >>>>>> deprecated?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> One nit about the KIP: can you maybe insert "code blocks" to
> > > >> highlight
> > > >>>>>> the API changes? Code blocks would simplify to read the KIP a
> lot.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> -Matthias
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On 6/26/19 6:56 AM, Ryanne Dolan wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Thanks.
> > > >>>>>>> Ryanne
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:21 PM Satish Duggana <
> > > >>>>>> satish.dugg...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> +1 (non-binding)
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 8:37 AM Satish Duggana <
> > > >>>>>> satish.dugg...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> +1 Matthias/Andy.
> > > >>>>>>>>> IMHO, interface is about the contract, it should not
> > have/expose
> > > >> any
> > > >>>>>>>>> implementation. I am fine with either way as it is more of
> > taste
> > > >> or
> > > >>>>>>>>> preference.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Agree with Ismael/Colin/Ryanne on not deprecating for good
> > > >> reasons.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 8:33 PM Andy Coates <
> a...@confluent.io
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I agree Matthias.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> (In Scala, such factory methods are on a companion object.
> As
> > > >> Java
> > > >>>>>>>> doesn't
> > > >>>>>>>>>> have the concept of a companion object, an equivalent would
> > be a
> > > >>>>>>>> utility
> > > >>>>>>>>>> class with a similar name...)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> However, I'll update the KIP to include the factory method
> on
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>>>>> interface.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 23:40, Matthias J. Sax <
> > > >> matth...@confluent.io>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I still think, that an interface does not need to know
> > > >> anything about
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> its implementation. But I am also fine if we add a factory
> > > >> method to
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> new interface if that is preferred by most people.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/19 7:10 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> This is even more reason not to deprecate immediately,
> there
> > > >> is
> > > >>>>>>>> very
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> little
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance cost for us. We should be mindful that many of
> > our
> > > >>>>>>>> users (eg
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Spark, Flink, etc.) typically allow users to specify the
> > kafka
> > > >>>>>>>> clients
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> version and hence avoid using new classes/interfaces for
> > some
> > > >>>>>>>> time. They
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> would get a bunch of warnings they cannot do anything
> about
> > > >> apart
> > > >>>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> suppressing.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ismael
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:00 AM Andy Coates <
> > > >> a...@confluent.io>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ismael,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m happy enough to not deprecate the existing
> > `AdminClient`
> > > >>>>>>>> class as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> part
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of this change.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> However, note that, the class will likely be empty, i.e.
> > all
> > > >>>>>>>> methods and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> implementations will be inherited from the interface:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> public abstract class AdminClient implements Admin {
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not marking it as deprecated has the benefit that users
> > > >> won’t see
> > > >>>>>>>> any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> deprecation warnings on the next release. Conversely,
> > > >> deprecating
> > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mean we can choose to remove this, now pointless class,
> in
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>>>>> future
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> if we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> choose.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s my thinking for deprecation, but as I’ve said I’m
> > > >> happy
> > > >>>>>>>> either
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> way.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Jun 2019, at 16:09, Ismael Juma <
> ism...@juma.me.uk>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Ryanne, I think we should avoid deprecating
> > > >>>>>>>> AdminClient
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> causing so much churn for users who don't actually care
> > > >> about
> > > >>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> niche
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use case.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ismael
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:43 AM Andy Coates <
> > > >> a...@confluent.io>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ryanne,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we don't change the client code, then everywhere
> will
> > > >> still
> > > >>>>>>>> expect
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subclasses of `AdminClient`, so the interface will be
> of
> > no
> > > >>>>>>>> use, i.e.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't write a class that implements the new interface
> and
> > > >> pass
> > > >>>>>>>> it to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client code.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 19:01, Ryanne Dolan <
> > > >>>>>>>> ryannedo...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy, while I agree that the new interface is useful,
> > I'm
> > > >> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> convinced
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding an interface requires deprecating AdminClient
> and
> > > >>>>>>>> changing so
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> much
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> client code. Why not just add the Admin interface,
> have
> > > >>>>>>>> AdminClient
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement it, and have done?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryanne
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:09 PM Andy Coates <
> > > >>>>>>>> a...@confluent.io>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I've addressed all concerns. Let me know if
> > I've
> > > >>>>>>>> not. Can I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another round of votes please?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 04:55, Satish Duggana <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> satish.dugg...@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andy,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP. This is a good change and it
> gives
> > > >> the
> > > >>>>>>>> user a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle on Admin client usage. I agree with the
> > proposal
> > > >>>>>>>> except the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `Admin` interface having all the methods from
> > > >> `AdminClient`
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> abstract
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It should be kept clean having only the admin
> > > >> operations as
> > > >>>>>>>> methods
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KafkaClient abstract class but not the factory
> methods
> > > >> as
> > > >>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier mail.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know about dynamic proxies(which were widely used
> in
> > > >>>>>>>> RMI/EJB
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> curious about the usecase using dynamic proxies with
> > > >> Admin
> > > >>>>>>>> client
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface. Dynamic proxy can have performance
> penalty
> > > >> if it
> > > >>>>>>>> is used
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> critical path. Is that the primary motivation for
> > > >> creating
> > > >>>>>>>> the KIP?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Satish.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:43 PM Andy Coates <
> > > >>>>>>>> a...@confluent.io>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not married to that part. That was only done
> to
> > > >> keep
> > > >>>>>>>> it more
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inline with what's already there, (an abstract
> class
> > > >> that
> > > >>>>>>>> has a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factory
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method that returns a subclass.... sounds like the
> > same
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-pattern
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;))
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An alternative would to have an `AdminClients`
> > utility
> > > >>>>>>>> class to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admin client.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 19:31, Matthias J. Sax <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matth...@confluent.io
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm...
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the new interface, returns an instance of a
> class
> > > >> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implements
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface. This sounds a little bit like an
> > > >> anti-pattern?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shouldn't
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces actually not know anything about
> classes
> > > >> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/19 11:22 AM, Andy Coates wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `AdminClient` would be deprecated purely because
> it
> > > >> would
> > > >>>>>>>> no
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serve
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any purpose and would be virtually empty, getting
> > > >> all of
> > > >>>>>>>> its
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementation
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the new interfar. It would be nice to remove
> > > >> this
> > > >>>>>>>> from the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> API
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next major version bump, hence the need to
> > deprecate.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `AdminClient.create()` would return what it does
> > > >> today,
> > > >>>>>>>> (so
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 22:24, Ryanne Dolan <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ryannedo...@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The existing `AdminClient` will be marked as
> > > >> deprecated.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's the reasoning behind this? I'm fine with
> > the
> > > >> other
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would prefer to keep the existing public API
> > intact
> > > >> if
> > > >>>>>>>> it's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hurting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, what will AdminClient.create() return?
> Would
> > > >> it be
> > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ryanne
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 11:17 AM Andy Coates <
> > > >>>>>>>> a...@confluent.io>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As there's been no chatter on this KIP I'm
> > > >> assuming it's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-contentious,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or just boring), hence I'd like to call a vote
> > for
> > > >>>>>>>> KIP-476:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-476%3A+Add+Java+AdminClient+Interface
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Attachments:
> > > >>>> * signature.asc
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
