Ismael, Thank you, will make it clear in the docs that mechanism can be passed even for GSSAPI from 0.10.0.0.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Hi Rajini, > > Thanks for clarifying. Comments inline. > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com > > wrote: > > > > Since we want to support arbitrary custom mechanisms, it feels better to > > use mechanism names rather than Strings. IDs would require ensuring that > > client and server have the same mapping. Since the mechanism name Strings > > are not particularly long and they are useful for debugging, I feel it is > > worthwhile to retain Strings rather than IDs. > > > > Fair enough. > > I wasn't sure whether Kafka attempted to retain compatibility in both > > directions. I would have preferred to send the mechanism even for GSSAPI > to > > keep the code consistent, but went for version compatibility instead. I > was > > thinking mainly of replication. If you have a cluster that uses 0.9.0.x > > with SASL replication, it would be easier to upgrade if new clients > worked > > with old brokers. > > > > That makes sense. We could use inter.broker.protocol.version for the > replication case, but `SaslClientAuthenticator` is shared between clients > and the broker and the way you did is probably simpler. However, the other > side of the coin is how we document the protocol for clients that are > distributed separately from Kafka itself. It would be good to make it clear > in such documentation that one can pass the mechanism even for the GSSAPI > case from 0.10.0.0 onwards. > > Ismael > -- Regards, Rajini
