I have a PR for this (https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4281) in case anyone wants to look at the implementation in detail, but right now this KIP still lacks any committer votes.
Cheers, Tom On 22 November 2017 at 17:32, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I just wanted to highlight to committers that although this KIP has three > non-binding votes, it currently lacks any binding votes: Any feedback would > be appreciated. > > Cheers, > > Tom > > On 7 November 2017 at 20:42, Stephane Maarek <steph...@simplemachines.com. > au> wrote: > >> Okay makes sense thanks! As you said maybe in the future (or now), it's >> worth starting a server java dependency jar that's not called "client". >> Probably a debate for another day ( >> >> Tom, crossing fingers to see more votes on this! Good stuff >> >> >> On 7/11/17, 9:51 pm, "Ismael Juma" <isma...@gmail.com on behalf of >> ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: >> >> The idea is that you only depend on a Java jar. The core jar includes >> the >> Scala version in the name and you should not care about that when >> implementing a Java interface. >> >> Ismael >> >> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Stephane Maarek < >> steph...@simplemachines.com.au> wrote: >> >> > Thanks ! >> > >> > How about a java folder package in the core then ? It's not a >> separate jar >> > and it's still java? >> > >> > Nonetheless I agree these are details. I just got really confused >> when >> > trying to write my policy and would hope that confusion is not >> shared by >> > others because it's a "client " class although should only reside >> within a >> > broker >> > >> > On 7 Nov. 2017 9:04 pm, "Ismael Juma" <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: >> > >> > The location of the policies is fine. Note that the package _does >> not_ >> > include clients in the name. If we ever have enough server side >> only code >> > to merit a separate JAR, we can do that and it's mostly compatible >> (users >> > would only have to update their build dependency). Generally, all >> public >> > APIs going forward will be in Java. >> > >> > Ismael >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Stephane Maarek < >> > steph...@simplemachines.com.au> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Tom, >> > > >> > > Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine >> (the >> > > compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy >> to be >> > > implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer) >> > > It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code. >> > > >> > > Thanks! >> > > Stephane >> > > >> > > Kind regards, >> > > Stephane >> > > >> > > [image: Simple Machines] >> > > >> > > Stephane Maarek | Developer >> > > >> > > +61 416 575 980 >> > > steph...@simplemachines.com.au >> > > simplemachines.com.au >> > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010 >> > > >> > > On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi Stephane, >> > > > >> > > > The vote on this KIP is on-going. >> > > > >> > > > I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and >> Mickael >> > > would >> > > > have to to not disagree with them. >> > > > >> > > > The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now. >> I don't >> > > know >> > > > the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that >> it's not >> > > > ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the >> > > situation >> > > > with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side >> > extensions >> > > > points which users can provide their own implementations of. I >> don't >> > know >> > > > whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala >> and >> > java >> > > > code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if >> these >> > > > server-side policies were moved. >> > > > >> > > > Cheers, >> > > > >> > > > Tom >> > > > >> > > > On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek < >> > > steph...@simplemachines.com. >> > > > au >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi Tom, >> > > > > >> > > > > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to >> implement a >> > > > > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy >> > > > > (and Alter, etc...) >> > > > > These policies would have some most basic parameter to check >> for >> > > > > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that >> end users >> > > can >> > > > > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the >> > interface >> > > so >> > > > > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP >> > > > > >> > > > > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress >> so I can >> > > > > propose my KIP. >> > > > > >> > > > > Finally, have the packages been discussed? >> > > > > I find it extremely awkward to have the current >> CreateTopicPolicy >> > part >> > > of >> > > > > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next >> classes >> > > you're >> > > > > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or >> > > > server/policy. >> > > > > Unless I'm missing something? >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for driving this >> > > > > Stephane >> > > > > >> > > > > Kind regards, >> > > > > Stephane >> > > > > >> > > > > [image: Simple Machines] >> > > > > >> > > > > Stephane Maarek | Developer >> > > > > >> > > > > +61 416 575 980 >> > > > > steph...@simplemachines.com.au >> > > > > simplemachines.com.au >> > > > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010 >> > > > > >> > > > > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley < >> t.j.bent...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and >> > although >> > > > > there >> > > > > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any >> feedback from >> > > > > > committers would be appreciated. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Tom >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar < >> eco...@uk.ibm.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the >> protocol) it >> > now >> > > > > > > supersedes KIP-170 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > +1 non-binding >> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Edoardo Comar >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > IBM Message Hub >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > From: Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> >> > > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org >> > > > > > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21 >> > > > > > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy >> interfaces >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to >> > replace >> > > > the >> > > > > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy >> interface >> > that >> > > > also >> > > > > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in >> the >> > > > > AdminClient. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint. >> com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki. >> > > > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A- >> > > > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_ >> > > > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r= >> > > > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m= >> > > tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT- >> > > > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp >> > > > D9517uJkCgrCk&e= >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks for your time. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Tom >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above: >> > > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and >> Wales with >> > > > > number >> > > > > > > 741598. >> > > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, >> > Hampshire >> > > > PO6 >> > > > > > 3AU >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >
