+users On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Hey Ismael, > > Thanks for bringing this up again. Just a quick question: if we do #1, > then there's no way that a user binary could work against both 0.9 and 0.10 > of kafka-clients, right? I'm not sure if that is much of a problem, but may > cause a little pain if a user somehow depends transitively on different > versions. Excluding this change, would we otherwise expect > kafka-clients-0.9 to work with an 0.10 broker? I thought the changes for > KIP-32 continued to support the old message format, but I could be wrong. > > -Jason > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > >> Coming back to this, see below. >> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> >> wrote: >> >> > >> > 1. For subscribe() and assign(), change the parameter type to >> collection as >> > planned in the KIP. This is at least source-compatible, so as long as >> users >> > compile against the updated release, there shouldn't be any problems. >> > >> >> I think this one seems to be the least controversial part of the proposal. >> And I agree with this suggestion. >> >> 2. Instead of changing the signatures of the current pause/resume/seek >> > APIs, maybe we can overload them. This keeps compatibility and supports >> the >> > more convenient collection usage, but the cost is some API bloat. >> > >> >> It seems like there is no clear winner, so I am OK with this too. >> >> Given the release plan for 0.10.0.0 that is being voted on, I think we >> should make a decision on this one way or another very soon. >> >> Ismael >> > >
