[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-9643?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Dominic Evans updated KAFKA-9643:
---------------------------------
Description:
In general the message format definitions used by the generator have maintained
unique types between them.
However, the AlterConfigsRequest and IncrementalAlterConfigsRequest definitions
both refer to the AlterConfigsResource and AlterableConfig type, with the
latter containing different fields in the Incremental case
[https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/69b670a444c7638f663e13dc37e0532ce64b1363/clients/src/main/resources/common/message/AlterConfigsRequest.json#L23-L36]
[https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/69b670a444c7638f663e13dc37e0532ce64b1363/clients/src/main/resources/common/message/IncrementalAlterConfigsRequest.json#L23-L38]
In the response case, the whole format is currently identical (although that
may change in the future) and both refer to an "AlterConfigsResponse" type with
identical fields
[https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/69b670a444c7638f663e13dc37e0532ce64b1363/clients/src/main/resources/common/message/AlterConfigsResponse.json#L23-L38]
[https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/69b670a444c7638f663e13dc37e0532ce64b1363/clients/src/main/resources/common/message/IncrementalAlterConfigsResponse.json#L23-L38|https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/69b670a444c7638f663e13dc37e0532ce64b1363/clients/src/main/resources/common/message/IncrementalAlterConfigsResponse.json#L23-L3]
I'm not sure what any potential backward compatibility ramifications would be,
but it seems like it would be a good idea to avoid this collision by (e.g.,)
prefixing the Incremental types with "Incremental" going forward.
was:
In general the message format definitions used by the generator have maintained
unique types between them.
However, the AlterConfigsRequest and IncrementalAlterConfigsRequest definitions
both refer to the AlterConfigsResource and AlterableConfig type, with the
latter containing different fields in the Incremental case
[https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/69b670a444c7638f663e13dc37e0532ce64b1363/clients/src/main/resources/common/message/AlterConfigsRequest.json#L23-L36]
[https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/69b670a444c7638f663e13dc37e0532ce64b1363/clients/src/main/resources/common/message/IncrementalAlterConfigsRequest.json#L23-L38]
I'm not sure what any potential backward compatibility ramifications would be,
but it seems like it would be a good idea to avoid this collision by (e.g.,)
prefixing the Incremental types with "Incremental" going forward.
> AlterConfigsRequest and IncrementalAlterConfigsRequest use conflicting type
> names
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-9643
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-9643
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: protocol
> Affects Versions: 2.4.0
> Reporter: Dominic Evans
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: generator, protocol
>
> In general the message format definitions used by the generator have
> maintained unique types between them.
> However, the AlterConfigsRequest and IncrementalAlterConfigsRequest
> definitions both refer to the AlterConfigsResource and AlterableConfig type,
> with the latter containing different fields in the Incremental case
> [https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/69b670a444c7638f663e13dc37e0532ce64b1363/clients/src/main/resources/common/message/AlterConfigsRequest.json#L23-L36]
> [https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/69b670a444c7638f663e13dc37e0532ce64b1363/clients/src/main/resources/common/message/IncrementalAlterConfigsRequest.json#L23-L38]
> In the response case, the whole format is currently identical (although that
> may change in the future) and both refer to an "AlterConfigsResponse" type
> with identical fields
> [https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/69b670a444c7638f663e13dc37e0532ce64b1363/clients/src/main/resources/common/message/AlterConfigsResponse.json#L23-L38]
> [https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/69b670a444c7638f663e13dc37e0532ce64b1363/clients/src/main/resources/common/message/IncrementalAlterConfigsResponse.json#L23-L38|https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/69b670a444c7638f663e13dc37e0532ce64b1363/clients/src/main/resources/common/message/IncrementalAlterConfigsResponse.json#L23-L3]
> I'm not sure what any potential backward compatibility ramifications would
> be, but it seems like it would be a good idea to avoid this collision by
> (e.g.,) prefixing the Incremental types with "Incremental" going forward.
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
