[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7435?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Konstantine Karantasis updated KAFKA-7435:
------------------------------------------
    Fix Version/s:     (was: 3.0.0)
                   3.1.0

> Consider standardizing the config object pattern on interface/implementation.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: KAFKA-7435
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7435
>             Project: Kafka
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: streams
>            Reporter: John Roesler
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 3.1.0
>
>
> Currently, the majority of Streams's config objects are structured as a 
> "external" builder class (with protected state) and an "internal" subclass 
> exposing getters to the state. This is serviceable, but there is an 
> alternative we can consider: to use an interface for the external API and the 
> implementation class for the internal one.
> Advantages:
>  * we could use private state, which improves maintainability
>  * the setters and getters would all be defined in the same class, improving 
> readability
>  * users browsing the public API would be able to look at an interface that 
> contains less extraneous internal details than the current class
>  * there is more flexibility in implementation
> Alternatives
>  * instead of external-class/internal-subclass, we could use an external 
> *final* class with package-protected state and an internal accessor class 
> (not a subclass, obviously). This would make it impossible for users to try 
> and create custom subclasses of our config objects, which is generally not 
> allowed already, but is currently a runtime class cast exception.
> Example implementation: [https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5677]
> This change would break binary, but not source, compatibility, so the 
> earliest we could consider it is 3.0.
> To be clear, I'm *not* saying this *should* be done, just calling for a 
> discussion. Otherwise, I'd make a KIP.
> Thoughts?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

Reply via email to