Hi, Actually there's a couple of compatibility issues. This will break all custom implementations of Header and Headers. We should probably add default methods since the logic would be the same for custom implementations. Also it seems add(String key, String value) may be ambiguous if called with null because of the existing add(String key, byte[] value). Maybe we could keep only the add(String key, String value, Charset charset) alternative to resolve this.
Thanks, Mickael On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 5:31 PM Andrew Schofield <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > Thanks, > Andrew > > On 2026/10/22 15:25:41 Mickael Maison wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for the KIP > > +1 (binding) > > > > Thanks, > > Mickael > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 8:49 PM Aditya Kousik <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > Gentle ping on this KIP. With the proposal, we can swap > > > record.headers().add(“isRetryRecord”, new byte[] { 0x0 }); with > > > record.headers.add(“isRetryRecord”, false); similarly for other plain > > > datatypes. > > > > > > Best, > > > Aditya > > > > > > > On May 26, 2026, at 22:23, Aditya Kousik <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-1308. > > > > > > > > KIP Design doc: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/FpY8G > > > > Discussion thread: > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/odpnx9ttbws0fjhfh07vspb5mklv2zq4 > > > > > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > > Aditya Kousik > >
