Hey Matthias,
Let me suggest an alternative. As you have mentioned, these config classes
do not give users much benefit currently. Maybe we change that? I think
many users would appreciate having a builder for configuration since it
provides type safety and is generally a much friendlier pattern to work
with programmatically. Users could then do something like this:
ConsumerConfig config = ConsumerConfig.newBuilder()
.setBootstrapServers("localhost:9092")
.setGroupId("group")
.setRequestTimeout(15, TimeUnit.SECONDS)
.build();
Consumer consumer = new KafkaConsumer(config);
An additional benefit of this is that it gives us a better way to expose
config deprecations. In any case, it would make it less odd to expose the
public constructor without giving users anything useful to do with the
class.
What do you think?
-Jason
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Matthias J. Sax <[email protected]>
wrote:
> It's tailored for internal usage. I think client constructors don't
> benefit from accepting those config objects. We just want to be able to
> access the default values for certain parameters.
>
> From a user point of view, it's actually boiler plate code if you pass
> in a config object instead of a plain Properties object because the
> config object itself is immutable.
>
> I actually create a JIRA to remove the constructors from KafkaStreams
> that do accept StreamsConfig for exact this reason:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6386
>
>
> -Matthias
>
>
> On 12/20/17 3:33 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> > Hi Matthias,
> >
> > Isn't it a little weird to make these constructors public but not also
> > expose the corresponding client constructors that use them?
> >
> > -Jason
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Bill Bejeck <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Guozhang Wang <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Tom Bentley <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> On 18 December 2017 at 23:28, Vahid S Hashemian <
> >>> [email protected]
> >>>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for the KIP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --Vahid
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Ted Yu <[email protected]>
> >>>>> To: [email protected]
> >>>>> Date: 12/18/2017 02:45 PM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-243: Make ProducerConfig and
> >>>> ConsumerConfig
> >>>>> constructors public
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> nit: via "copy and past" an 'e' is missing at the end.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Matthias J. Sax <
> >>> [email protected]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I want to propose the following KIP:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
> >>>>> apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
> >>>>> iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=Q_itwloTQj3_xUKl7Nzswo6KE4Nj-
> >>>>> kjJc7uSVcviKUc&m=JToRX4-HeVsRoOekIz18ht-YLMe-T21MttZTgbxB4ag&s=
> >>>>> 6aZjPCc9e00raokVPKvx1BxwDOHyCuKNgtBXPMeoHy4&e=
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 243%3A+Make+ProducerConfig+and+ConsumerConfig+constructors+public
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is a rather straight forward change, thus I skip the DISCUSS
> >>>>>> thread and call for a vote immediately.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Matthias
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> -- Guozhang
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
