Sorry for my misunderstanding, I assumed the request to include the keyword removal came from you.
And it is always good to know what versions LinkedIn are running, you guys always serve as somewhat of a gold standard to the community :) On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Ignacio Solis <iso...@igso.net> wrote: > I don't think anybody from LinkedIn asked for features on this release. We > just jumped in at the discussion of including a patch which was not a bug > fix and whether it mattered. > > Having said that, the internal release we're working on came off the 0.10.1 > branch with a few internal hotfix patches and a few cherry picked fixes... > Including the final keyword removal patch. > > Nacho > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 5:15 PM Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: >> >> btw. is LinkedIn no longer running from trunk? I'm not used to >> LinkedIn employees requesting specific patches to be included in a >> bugfix release. >> >> Any discussion on the content of any release is obviously welcome, I'm >> just wondering if there was a change in policy. >> >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: >> > OK, so it seems like there are no changes that break compatibility in >> > the >> > 0.10.1 branch since we offer no compatibility guarantees for logging >> > output. That's good. :) >> > >> > About the removal of final, it happened in trunk and it doesn't seem >> > like >> > anyone is still asking for it to be included in the 0.10.1 branch so it >> > is >> > indeed not important for this bug fix release (I thought we had >> > established >> > that quite a while ago). >> > >> > Ismael >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Ignacio Solis <iso...@igso.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Sorry, that was a hasty reply. There are also various logging things >> >> that >> >> change format. This could break parsers. >> >> >> >> None of them are important, my only argument is that the final keyword >> >> removal is not important either. >> >> >> >> Nacho >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Ignacio Solis <iso...@igso.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=kafka.git;a=commit;h= >> >> > 10cfc1628df024f7596d3af5c168fa90f59035ca >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Which changes break compatibility in the 0.10.1 branch? It would be >> >> >> good >> >> >> to >> >> >> fix before the release goes out. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ismael >> >> >> >> >> >> On 29 Nov 2016 9:09 pm, "Ignacio Solis" <iso...@igso.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Some of the changes in the 0.10.1 branch already are not bug >> >> >> > fixes. >> >> Some >> >> >> > break compatibility. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Having said that, at this level we should maintain a stable API >> >> >> > and >> >> >> leave >> >> >> > any changes for real version bumps. This should be only a bugfix >> >> >> release. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Nacho >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > I disagree, but let's discuss it another time and in a separate >> >> >> thread. >> >> >> > :) >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Ismael >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:30 PM, radai >> >> >> > > <radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > designing kafka code for stable extensibility is a worthy and >> >> noble >> >> >> > > cause. >> >> >> > > > however, seeing as there are no such derivatives out in the >> >> >> > > > wild >> >> >> yet i >> >> >> > > > think investing the effort right now is a bit premature from >> >> kafka's >> >> >> > pov. >> >> >> > > > I think its enough simply not to purposefully prevent such >> >> >> extensions. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:05 AM, Ismael Juma >> >> >> > > > <ism...@juma.me.uk> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 11:08 PM, radai < >> >> >> radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > "compatibility guarantees that are expected by people who >> >> >> subclass >> >> >> > > > these >> >> >> > > > > > classes" >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > sorry if this is not the best thread for this discussion, >> >> >> > > > > > but >> >> I >> >> >> > just >> >> >> > > > > wanted >> >> >> > > > > > to pop in and say that since any subclassing of these will >> >> >> > obviously >> >> >> > > > not >> >> >> > > > > be >> >> >> > > > > > done within the kafka codebase - what guarantees are >> >> >> > > > > > needed? >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > I elaborated a little in my other message in this thread. A >> >> simple >> >> >> > and >> >> >> > > > > somewhat contrived example: `ConsumerRecord.toString` calls >> >> >> > > > > the >> >> >> > `topic` >> >> >> > > > > method. Someone overrides the `topic` method and it all >> >> >> > > > > works as >> >> >> > > > expected. >> >> >> > > > > In a subsequent release, we change `toString` to use the >> >> >> > > > > field >> >> >> > directly >> >> >> > > > > (like it's done for other fields like `key` and `value`) and >> >> >> > > > > it >> >> >> will >> >> >> > > > break >> >> >> > > > > `toString` for this user. One may wonder: why would one >> >> override a >> >> >> > > method >> >> >> > > > > like `topic`? That is a good question, but part of the >> >> >> > > > > exercise >> >> is >> >> >> > > > deciding >> >> >> > > > > how we approach these issues. We could make the methods >> >> >> > > > > final >> >> and >> >> >> > > > eliminate >> >> >> > > > > the possibility, we could document it so that users can >> >> >> > > > > choose >> >> to >> >> >> do >> >> >> > > > weird >> >> >> > > > > things if they want, etc. >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Another thing that is usually good to think about is the >> >> >> expectation >> >> >> > > for >> >> >> > > > > `equals` and `hashCode`. What if subclasses implement them >> >> >> > > > > to >> >> have >> >> >> > > value >> >> >> > > > > semantics instead of identity semantics. Is that OK or would >> >> >> > > > > it >> >> >> break >> >> >> > > > > things? >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Designing for implementation inheritance is generally >> >> >> > > > > complex >> >> >> > although >> >> >> > > > for >> >> >> > > > > simple "record" like classes, it can be easier by following >> >> >> > > > > a >> >> few >> >> >> > > > > guidelines. >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Ismael >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> > Nacho - Ignacio Solis - iso...@igso.net >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Nacho - Ignacio Solis - iso...@igso.net >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Nacho - Ignacio Solis - iso...@igso.net >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Gwen Shapira >> Product Manager | Confluent >> 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap >> Follow us: Twitter | blog -- Gwen Shapira Product Manager | Confluent 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap Follow us: Twitter | blog
