ableegoldman commented on code in PR #14681:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/14681#discussion_r1380876249
##########
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/ProducerConfig.java:
##########
@@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ public ProducerConfig(Map<String, Object> props) {
super(CONFIG, props);
}
- ProducerConfig(Map<?, ?> props, boolean doLog) {
+ protected ProducerConfig(Map<?, ?> props, boolean doLog) {
Review Comment:
@ijuma I can do a very quick KIP if you would like (and kick off the voting
immediately as I think the change itself is uncontroversial). Obviously I would
prefer not to, but am happy with whatever gets this through the fastest, even
if that means just doing a KIP to avoid a long drawn-out debate
Also, just to take a quick step back, we are not saying that "a change to
javadocs of a public class" is what defines the public API, but rather anything
that changes the javadocs of what is established as a public API then needs a
KIP? In other words, the question is not really about the javadocs, but simply
whether `protected` APIs are part of the public API? (I hadn't refreshed the
page and so didn't see any of the responses after Bruno's initial comment when
I wrote my reply above, but I still would like to clarify this concretely)
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jira-unsubscr...@kafka.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
