kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Date Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:20:09 GMT
This vote has been silent for a few weeks now but I think this would
be a very useful feature.

Did it just slip through busy inboxes or are there reasons why
committers have not voted ?

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Tom Bentley <t.j.bentley@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a PR for this (https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4281) in case
> anyone wants to look at the implementation in detail, but right now this
> KIP still lacks any committer votes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> On 22 November 2017 at 17:32, Tom Bentley <t.j.bentley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I just wanted to highlight to committers that although this KIP has three
>> non-binding votes, it currently lacks any binding votes: Any feedback would
>> be appreciated.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On 7 November 2017 at 20:42, Stephane Maarek <stephane@simplemachines.com.
>> au> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay makes sense thanks! As you said maybe in the future (or now), it's
>>> worth starting a server java dependency jar that's not called "client".
>>> Probably a debate for another day (
>>>
>>> Tom, crossing fingers to see more votes on this! Good stuff
>>>
>>>
>>> ´╗┐On 7/11/17, 9:51 pm, "Ismael Juma" <ismaelj@gmail.com on behalf of
>>> ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>     The idea is that you only depend on a Java jar. The core jar includes
>>> the
>>>     Scala version in the name and you should not care about that when
>>>     implementing a Java interface.
>>>
>>>     Ismael
>>>
>>>     On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Stephane Maarek <
>>>     stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>     > Thanks !
>>>     >
>>>     > How about a java folder package in the core then ? It's not a
>>> separate jar
>>>     > and it's still java?
>>>     >
>>>     > Nonetheless I agree these are details. I just got really confused
>>> when
>>>     > trying to write my policy and would hope that confusion is not
>>> shared by
>>>     > others because it's a "client " class although should only reside
>>> within a
>>>     > broker
>>>     >
>>>     > On 7 Nov. 2017 9:04 pm, "Ismael Juma" <ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>>>     >
>>>     > The location of the policies is fine. Note that the package _does
>>> not_
>>>     > include clients in the name. If we ever have enough server side
>>> only code
>>>     > to merit a separate JAR, we can do that and it's mostly compatible
>>> (users
>>>     > would only have to update their build dependency). Generally, all
>>> public
>>>     > APIs going forward will be in Java.
>>>     >
>>>     > Ismael
>>>     >
>>>     > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Stephane Maarek <
>>>     > stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
>>>     >
>>>     > > Hi Tom,
>>>     > >
>>>     > > Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine
>>> (the
>>>     > > compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy
>>> to be
>>>     > > implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer)
>>>     > > It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code.
>>>     > >
>>>     > > Thanks!
>>>     > > Stephane
>>>     > >
>>>     > > Kind regards,
>>>     > > Stephane
>>>     > >
>>>     > > [image: Simple Machines]
>>>     > >
>>>     > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
>>>     > >
>>>     > > +61 416 575 980
>>>     > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
>>>     > > simplemachines.com.au
>>>     > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>>>     > >
>>>     > > On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t.j.bentley@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>     > >
>>>     > > > Hi Stephane,
>>>     > > >
>>>     > > > The vote on this KIP is on-going.
>>>     > > >
>>>     > > > I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo
and
>>> Mickael
>>>     > > would
>>>     > > > have to to not disagree with them.
>>>     > > >
>>>     > > > The packages have not been brought up as a problem before
now.
>>> I don't
>>>     > > know
>>>     > > > the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that
>>> it's not
>>>     > > > ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous
to the
>>>     > > situation
>>>     > > > with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side
>>>     > extensions
>>>     > > > points which users can provide their own implementations of.
I
>>> don't
>>>     > know
>>>     > > > whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent
scala
>>> and
>>>     > java
>>>     > > > code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy
if
>>> these
>>>     > > > server-side policies were moved.
>>>     > > >
>>>     > > > Cheers,
>>>     > > >
>>>     > > > Tom
>>>     > > >
>>>     > > > On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek <
>>>     > > stephane@simplemachines.com.
>>>     > > > au
>>>     > > > > wrote:
>>>     > > >
>>>     > > > > Hi Tom,
>>>     > > > >
>>>     > > > > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP
to
>>> implement a
>>>     > > > > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy
>>>     > > > > (and Alter, etc...)
>>>     > > > > These policies would have some most basic parameter to
check
>>> for
>>>     > > > > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so
that
>>> end users
>>>     > > can
>>>     > > > > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes
the
>>>     > interface
>>>     > > so
>>>     > > > > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP
>>>     > > > >
>>>     > > > > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress
>>> so I can
>>>     > > > > propose my KIP.
>>>     > > > >
>>>     > > > > Finally, have the packages been discussed?
>>>     > > > > I find it extremely awkward to have the current
>>> CreateTopicPolicy
>>>     > part
>>>     > > of
>>>     > > > > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the
next
>>> classes
>>>     > > you're
>>>     > > > > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy
or
>>>     > > > server/policy.
>>>     > > > > Unless I'm missing something?
>>>     > > > >
>>>     > > > > Thanks for driving this
>>>     > > > > Stephane
>>>     > > > >
>>>     > > > > Kind regards,
>>>     > > > > Stephane
>>>     > > > >
>>>     > > > > [image: Simple Machines]
>>>     > > > >
>>>     > > > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
>>>     > > > >
>>>     > > > > +61 416 575 980
>>>     > > > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
>>>     > > > > simplemachines.com.au
>>>     > > > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>>>     > > > >
>>>     > > > > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <
>>> t.j.bentley@gmail.com>
>>>     > > wrote:
>>>     > > > >
>>>     > > > > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on
this KIP and
>>>     > although
>>>     > > > > there
>>>     > > > > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes.
Any
>>> feedback from
>>>     > > > > > committers would be appreciated.
>>>     > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > Thanks,
>>>     > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > Tom
>>>     > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <
>>> ECOMAR@uk.ibm.com>
>>>     > > wrote:
>>>     > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes
to the
>>> protocol) it
>>>     > now
>>>     > > > > > > supersedes KIP-170
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > > +1 non-binding
>>>     > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > > Edoardo Comar
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > > IBM Message Hub
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > > From:   Tom Bentley <t.j.bentley@gmail.com>
>>>     > > > > > > To:     dev@kafka.apache.org
>>>     > > > > > > Date:   11/10/2017 09:21
>>>     > > > > > > Subject:        [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising
policy
>>> interfaces
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which
proposes to
>>>     > replace
>>>     > > > the
>>>     > > > > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new
policy
>>> interface
>>>     > that
>>>     > > > also
>>>     > > > > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing
APIs in
>>> the
>>>     > > > > AdminClient.
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.
>>> com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
>>>     > > > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
>>>     > > > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
>>>     > > > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
>>>     > > > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=
>>>     > > tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
>>>     > > > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp
>>>     > > > D9517uJkCgrCk&e=
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > > Thanks for your time.
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > > Tom
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
>>>     > > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in
England and
>>> Wales with
>>>     > > > > number
>>>     > > > > > > 741598.
>>>     > > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour,
Portsmouth,
>>>     > Hampshire
>>>     > > > PO6
>>>     > > > > > 3AU
>>>     > > > > > >
>>>     > > > > >
>>>     > > > >
>>>     > > >
>>>     > >
>>>     >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Mime
View raw message