kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Aerts <steven.ae...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-218: Make KafkaFuture.Function java 8 lambda compatible
Date Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:03:16 GMT
Tom,

Thanks for the review.
updated the motivation a little bit, it's better, but I have to admit can
be improved.
I made addWaiters public.

Enjoy,

Steven



Op ma 4 dec. 2017 om 11:01 schreef Tom Bentley <t.j.bentley@gmail.com>:

> Hi Steven,
>
> Thanks for updating the KIP. I have a couple of points:
>
> 1. Typo in the first sentence of the Motivation. Also what does "empty
> public abstract classes with one abstract method" mean -- if it's got one
> abstract method in what way is it empty?
> 2.From an entirely self-centred point of view, the main thing that's
> missing for my work in KIP-183 is that addWaiter() needs to be public.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Tom
>
> On 2 December 2017 at 10:07, Steven Aerts <steven.aerts@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > I just made changes to the proposal of KIP-218, to make everything more
> > backwards compatible as suggested by Collin.
> > For me it is now in a state where starts to become final.
> >
> > I propose to wait a few days so everybody can take a look and open the
> > votes when I do not receive any major comments.
> >
> > Does that sound ok for you?
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > 218%3A+Make+KafkaFuture.Function+java+8+lambda+compatible
> >
> > Thanks for your patience,
> >
> >
> >    Steven
> >
> >
> > Op vr 1 dec. 2017 om 11:55 schreef Tom Bentley <t.j.bentley@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi Steven,
> > >
> > > I'm particularly interested in seeing progress on this KIP as the work
> > for
> > > KIP-183 needs a public version of BiConsumer. do you have any idea when
> > the
> > > KIP might be ready for voting?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > On 10 November 2017 at 13:38, Steven Aerts <steven.aerts@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Collin, Ben,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the input.
> > > >
> > > > I will work out this proposa, so I get an idea on the impact.
> > > >
> > > > Do you think it is a good idea to line up the new method names with
> > those
> > > > of CompletableFuture?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    Steven
> > > >
> > > > Op vr 10 nov. 2017 om 12:12 schreef Ben Stopford <ben@confluent.io>:
> > > >
> > > > > Sounds like a good middle ground to me. What do you think Steven?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:18 PM Colin McCabe <cmccabe@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It would definitely be nice to use the jdk8 CompletableFuture.
 I
> > > think
> > > > > > that's a bit of a separate discussion, though, since it has
such
> > > heavy
> > > > > > compatibility implications.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about making KIP-218 backwards compatible?  As a starting
> > point,
> > > > you
> > > > > > can change KafkaFuture#BiConsumer to an interface with no
> > > compatibility
> > > > > > implications, since there are currently no public functions
> exposed
> > > > that
> > > > > > use it.  That leaves KafkaFuture#Function, which is publicly
used
> > > now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the purposes of KIP-218, how about adding a new interface
> > > > > > FunctionInterface?  Then you can add a function like this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >  public abstract <R> KafkaFuture<R>
> > thenApply(FunctionInterface<T,
> > > R>
> > > > > > function);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And mark the older declaration as deprecated:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >  @deprecated
> > > > > > >  public abstract <R> KafkaFuture<R> thenApply(Function<T,
R>
> > > > function);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a 100% compatible way to make things nicer for java
8.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > Colin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017, at 10:38, Steven Aerts wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nice observation.
> > > > > > > I changed "Rejected Alternatives" section to "Other
> > Alternatives",
> > > as
> > > > > > > I see myself as too much of an outsider to the kafka community
> to
> > > be
> > > > > > > able to decide without this discussion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see two major factors to decide:
> > > > > > >  - how soon will KIP-118 (drop support of java 7) be
> implemented?
> > > > > > >  - for which reasons do we drop backwards compatibility
for
> > public
> > > > > > > interfaces marked as Evolving
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If KIP-118 which is scheduled for version 2.0.0 is going
to be
> > > > > > > implemented soon, I agree with you that replacing KafkaFuture
> > with
> > > > > > > CompletableFuture (or CompletionStage) is a preferable
option.
> > > > > > > But as I am not familiar with the roadmap it is difficult
to
> tell
> > > for
> > > > > me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    Steven
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-11-02 11:27 GMT+01:00 Tom Bentley <t.j.bentley@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > > > > > Hi Steven,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I notice you've renamed the template's "Rejected
> Alternatives"
> > > > > section
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > "Other Alternatives", suggesting they're not rejected
yet
> (or,
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > rejected them, I think you should give your reasons).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Personally, I'd like to understand the arguments against
> simply
> > > > > > replacing
> > > > > > > > KafkaFuture with CompletableFuture in Kafka 2.0. In
other
> > words,
> > > if
> > > > > we
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > starting without needing to support Java 7 what would
be the
> > > > > arguments
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > having our own KafkaFuture?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 1 November 2017 at 16:01, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> KAFKA-4423 is still open.
> > > > > > > >> When would Java 7 be dropped ?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Ismael Juma <
> > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Ted Yu <
> yuzhihong@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > bq. Wait for a kafka release which will
not support
> java 7
> > > > > anymore
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Do you want to raise a separate thread
for the above ?
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > There is already a KIP for this so a separate
thread is
> not
> > > > > needed.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Ismael
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message