I hate doing this, because Ashish has really been good about following up on the PR, but I'm questioning the usefulness of this patch.
It adds non-trivial complexity to the client... with not much return on the investment, as far as I can see? When I first suggested it, it was before KIP-35 was merged and released and the intent was to validate KIP-35 (since I have low opinion of protocols that aren't used). Since then KIP-35 was already released, the followup turned more complex than we expected, I think. And I'm wondering if it is worth it. The work and followup from Ashish is still super appreciated, but I think we need more than appreciation - adding complexity to already complex clients need to have functional justification... Anyway, I was out of the loop for ages, so feel free to yell at me for missing the obvious. Gwen On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Provided wrong link to PR, here is the PR > <https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1251> for KAFKA-3600. > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> Hey Guys, >> >> KAFKA-3600 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3600> was part of >> KIP-35's proposal. KAFKA-3307 >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3307>, >> adding ApiVersionsRequest/Response, was committed to 0.10.0.0, but >> KAFKA-3600, enhancing java clients, is still under review. Here is the PR >> <https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/986> >> >> I have addressed all review comments and have been waiting for further >> reviews/ this to go in for quite some time. I will really appreciate if a >> committer can help with making progress on this. >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> Ashish >> > > > > -- > > Regards, > Ashish -- Gwen Shapira Product Manager | Confluent 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap Follow us: Twitter | blog
