On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 4:36 PM Raghu Angadi > <mailto:ang...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> +1 for next LTS.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:30 PM Ismaël Mejía > <mailto:ieme...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> We should focus on the main reason to remove the Kafka 0.9 suppor
pr 3, 2019 at 4:36 PM Raghu Angadi <mailto:ang...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> +1 for next LTS.
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:30 PM Ismaël Mejía <mailto:ieme...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> We should focus on the main reason to remove the Kafka 0.9 support. I
> have the impres
aël Mejía wrote:
>
>> We should focus on the main reason to remove the Kafka 0.9 support. I
>> have the impression that this is mostly to ease the maintenance, but
>> from the current status (and the removal PR [1]), it does not seem
>> like it is a burden to continue
We should focus on the main reason to remove the Kafka 0.9 support. I
have the impression that this is mostly to ease the maintenance, but
from the current status (and the removal PR [1]), it does not seem
like it is a burden to continue supporting 0.9. In any case I am +1 to
remove the support
>> path isn't trivial, is very critical flows, and they are scared for it to
>>>>>> break, so it just sits behind firewalls, etc). But, I wouldn't begin
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> for probably at least another quarter.
>>>>>>
>
.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anecdotally, this could be a place many enterprises are at (though I
>>>>> also wonder whether many of the people that would be 'stuck' on such
>>>>> versions would also have Beam on their current radar).
>>>>&
any of the people that would be 'stuck' on such
>>>> versions would also have Beam on their current radar).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 2:29 PM Kenneth Knowles wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This could be a backward-incompati
; many interpretations. What matters is user pain. Technically if we don't
>>>> break the core SDK, users should be able to use Java SDK >=2.11.0 with
>>>> KafkaIO 2.11.0 forever.
>>>>
>>>> How are multiple versions of Kafka supported? Are they all in one
>>>>
ltiple versions of Kafka supported? Are they all in one
>>> client, or is there a case for forks like ElasticSearchIO?
>>>
>>> Kenn
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 10:37 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 to remove 0
rote:
>>
>>> +1 to remove 0.9 support.
>>>
>>> I think it's more interesting to test and verify Kafka 2.2.0 than 0.9 ;)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On 01/04/2019 19:36, David Morávek wrote:
>>> > Hello,
>>> >
ofré <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> wrote:
> +1 to remove 0.9 support.
>
> I think it's more interesting to test and verify Kafka 2.2.0 than 0.9 ;)
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 01/04/2019 19:36, David Morávek wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > is there still a r
+1 to remove 0.9 support.
>>>
>>> I think it's more interesting to test and verify Kafka 2.2.0 than 0.9 ;)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> JB
>>>
>>> On 01/04/2019 19:36, David Morávek wrote:
>>> > Hello,
>>> >
>>> &
/04/2019 19:36, David Morávek wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > is there still a reason to keep Kafka 0.9 support? This unfortunately
>> > adds lot of complexity to KafkaIO implementation.
>> >
>> > Kafka 0.9 was released on Nov 2015.
>> >
19:36, David Morávek wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > is there still a reason to keep Kafka 0.9 support? This unfortunately
> > adds lot of complexity to KafkaIO implementation.
> >
> > Kafka 0.9 was released on Nov 2015.
> >
> > My first shot on
+1 to remove 0.9 support.
I think it's more interesting to test and verify Kafka 2.2.0 than 0.9 ;)
Regards
JB
On 01/04/2019 19:36, David Morávek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there still a reason to keep Kafka 0.9 support? This unfortunately
> adds lot of complexity to KafkaIO im
Hello,
is there still a reason to keep Kafka 0.9 support? This unfortunately adds
lot of complexity to KafkaIO implementation.
Kafka 0.9 was released on Nov 2015.
My first shot on removing Kafka 0.9 support would remove second consumer,
which is used for fetching offsets.
WDYT? Is this support
16 matches
Mail list logo
