KIP 321 has passed. Here is the vote break down:
Binding: - Matthias J. Sax - Guozhang Wong - Ewen Cheslack-Postava Non-Binding: - Ted Yu - Bill Bejeck - Damian Guy Thanks to all those who voted and provided feedback! Best, Nishanth Pradeep On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 12:42 PM Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> wrote: > I agree with Guozhang. > > Breaking compatibility is not acceptable. > > If we want the change to use `Optional`, we should deprecate the current > method and explain that it return type will change in next major release > 3.0.0 and create a ticket for this change that we can tackle when time > comes. > > > > -Matthias > > On 8/2/18 9:10 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > I think leaving the current return value to be null-able is okay, as long > > as it is well documented in java doc. > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> You have 3 binding votes, so i'll defer to the others. > >> > >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 04:41 Nishanth Pradeep <nishanth...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> The only issue I see with this is that Sink#topic would also need to be > >>> Optional as was pointed out already. Since Sink#topic is a preexisting > >>> method, changing its return type would break backwards compatibility. > >>> > >>> On the other hand, it might be worth it to rip that bandaid now. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Nishanth Pradeep > >>> > >>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:56 AM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> For source node, only one of `Set<topics> topicsSet` and `TopicPattern > >>>> topicPattern()` will be specified by the user. Similarly for sink > node, > >>>> only one of `String` and `TopicNameExtractor` will be specified by the > >>>> user. Although I've not seen Nishanth's updated PR, I think when it is > >> not > >>>> specified today we will return null in that case. > >>>> > >>>> If we want to improve on this situation with Optional, we'd need to do > >> it > >>>> on all of these functions. Also note that for `Source#toString()` and > >>>> `Sink#toString()` we should only include the specified field in the > >>>> resulted representation. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Guozhang > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Ewen - no as I don't believe they are never null. Whereas the > >>>>> topicNameExtractor method returns null if it is the default extractor > >> or > >>>>> the extractor. So i think this would be better to be optional as it > is > >>>>> optionally returning a TopicNameExtractor > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 at 23:01 Ewen Cheslack-Postava < > e...@confluent.io > >>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Generally +1 (binding) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It would be helpful to just provide the full, updated interfaces in > >>>> the > >>>>>> KIP and mark things as new with comments if needed. I had to go back > >>>> and > >>>>>> read the discussion thread to make sure I was understanding the > >> intent > >>>>>> correctly. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Damian -- if we make that Optional, shouldn't the methods on Source > >>>> also > >>>>>> be Optional types? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Ewen > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:13 PM Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Nishanth, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have one nit on the KIP. I think the topicNameExtractor method > >>>> should > >>>>>>> return Optional<TopicNameExtractor> rather than null. > >>>>>>> Sorry I'm late here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> Damian > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 at 01:14 Nishanth Pradeep < > >> nishanth...@gmail.com > >>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We need one more binding vote. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Binding Votes: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - Matthias J. Sax > >>>>>>>> - Guozhang Wong > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Community Votes: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - Bill Bejeck > >>>>>>>> - Ted Yu > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> Nishanth Pradeep > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:02 AM Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -Bill > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 2:39 AM Guozhang Wang < > >>>> wangg...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Matthias J. Sax < > >>>>>>>> matth...@confluent.io > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 (binding) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/18 7:47 PM, Ted Yu wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 7:24 PM Nishanth Pradeep < > >>>>>>>>>> nishanth...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm calling a vote for KIP-321: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > >>>>> 321%3A+Update+ > >>>>>>>>>>> TopologyDescription+to+better+represent+Source+and+Sink+ > >> Nodes > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nishanth Pradeep > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> -- Guozhang > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >
