Mailing-List: contact dev-help@kafka.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@kafka.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMd5Ysyeb=863KDWZAdSRK3ehrkPRoRWMwFzkUYwj+prRHFygA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMd5YswjZWWB134fcKjCkdFE0XJcxWsk0bEuTqUGpJh-1LAmHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <OF4EC6BF0E.1DAD5B49-ON802581B7.00320274-802581B7.0032544B@notes.na.collabserv.com>
 <CAMd5YsxWa_kJU+MgCTdxMV3CGp9wY=bW9Fk3S8GeZcePEF+uXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP0pA4OEu2gKuKUV=gSm9i+T9_DDPaOXPN9O-Hi=iCyrifsAUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMd5YsyyU1sr38_4xLRBB7D6C9o4GqLk8gnUCPz+Ht=KW6NLQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP0pA4O1Fv_N5B9dbGGaO-M8YcaERef-14R4AsNmN7862NdrKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD5tkZZrV0CK6kYFJfJjqT87Sk7dAhLDbApm34C_T=GGRoeTaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP0pA4P9OJkzNvGVxckWvpPoUK2cyCSG=BotT_gED9aYmhNj-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP0pA4ML2fcd6aOyw+PVhu7b2G15PbFtW0QzNAhm7WaANX0=jA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP0pA4O2CJBm_ZaJbn2NVBZHJMymfsvnTPi_cbzxonnn3eH9GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD5tkZayh6bvd1NZn6zw8R_MjP0dcsP9sDNwDDz-cOcSHrOsHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BCE03D70-DF31-4708-9283-6E970EC8391B@simplemachines.com.au> <CAMd5Ysyeb=863KDWZAdSRK3ehrkPRoRWMwFzkUYwj+prRHFygA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Bentley <t.j.bentley@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:37:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMd5YswHNmo+nGC1JD4m6dBq3c+qPD9=pv5OUVfpskTH_+oy7w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0df368b36ad2055f44f543"
archived-at: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 10:37:57 -0000

--94eb2c0df368b36ad2055f44f543
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 wou=
ld
> 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
>>
>>
>> =EF=BB=BFOn 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 include=
s
>> 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 polic=
y
>> 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 t=
he
>>     > > 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 scal=
a
>> 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 a=
nd
>>     > 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=3Dhttps-3A__cwiki.
>>     > > > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
>>     > > > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=3DDwIBaQ&c=3Djf_
>>     > > > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=3D
>>     > > > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=3D
>>     > > tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
>>     > > > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=3DpuFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp
>>     > > > D9517uJkCgrCk&e=3D
>>     > > > > > >
>>     > > > > > >
>>     > > > > > > 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
>>     > > > > > >
>>     > > > > >
>>     > > > >
>>     > > >
>>     > >
>>     >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

--94eb2c0df368b36ad2055f44f543--