Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be removed or replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than that. KIP-720 is proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed. That's all this particular KIP is proposing.
Ryanne On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant. Also, if it's > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features. I'm a puzzled > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional development and > should be deprecated - all at the same time. > > Ismael > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <tbent...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Hi Ryanne, > > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it because we > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and "it's > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case properly". While > > the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation, the latter > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear to me > whether > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1. On the > one > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're saying we > have > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases would be > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I think. OTOH the > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about which the > > situation is. > > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot replace? If > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're intentionally doing > > that. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Tom > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for > deprecation > > -- > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important for xyz" > -- > > so > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The motivation > > for > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much else to > > say, > > > IMO. > > > > > > Ryanne > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include proper > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains useful, > we > > > want > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to officially > > > deprecate > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no longer > > > useful > > > > instead. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to > > > deprecate > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1 > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > Ryanne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
