kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-218: Make KafkaFuture.Function java 8 lambda compatible
Date Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:54:55 GMT
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