Bumping this thread up again, thanks!
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:24 AM Yishun Guan <gyis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bumping this thread up again, thanks!
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 4:53 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018, at 15:45, Yishun Guan wrote:
>> > Hi Colin,
>> >
>> > Thanks for your suggestions. I have modified the current KIP with your
>> > comments. However, I still think I should keep the entire list, because it
>> > is a good way to keep track of which class need to be change, and others
>> > can discuss if changes on these internal classes are necessary?
>>
>> Hi Yishun,
>>
>> I guess I don't feel that strongly about it. If you want to keep the
>> internal classes in the list, that's fine. They don't really need to be in
>> the KIP but it's OK if they're there.
>>
>> Thanks for working on this. +1 (binding).
>>
>> best,
>> Colin
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Yishun
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:42 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Yishun,
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for looking at this.
>> > >
>> > > Under "proposed changes," it's not necessary to add a section where you
>> > > demonstrate adding "implements AutoCloseable" to the code. We know what
>> > > adding that would look like.
>> > >
>> > > Can you create a full, single, list of all the classes that would be
>> > > affected? It's not necessary to write who suggested which classes in the
>> > > KIP. Also, I noticed some of the classes here are in "internals"
>> > > packages. Given that these are internal classes that aren't part of our
>> > > API, it's not necessary to add them to the KIP, I think. Since they are
>> > > implementation details, they can be changed at any time without a KIP.
>> > >
>> > > The "compatibility" section should have a discussion of the fact that we
>> > > can add the new interface without requiring any backwards-incompatible
>> > > changes at the source or binary level. In particular, it would be good
>> > > to
>> > > highlight that we are not renaming or changing the existing "close"
>> > > methods.
>> > >
>> > > Under "rejected alternatives" we could explain why we chose to implement
>> > > AutoCloseable rather than Closeable.
>> > >
>> > > cheers,
>> > > Colin
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018, at 13:48, Yishun Guan wrote:
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > Just to bump this voting thread up again. Thanks!
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > > Yishun
>> > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 12:58 PM Yishun Guan <gyis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hi,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think we have discussed this well enough to put this into a vote.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Suggestions are welcome!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Best,
>> > > > > Yishun
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018, 2:30 PM Yishun Guan <gyis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Hi All,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I want to start a voting on this KIP:
>> > > > >>
>> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=93325308
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Here is the discussion thread:
>> > > > >>
>> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9f6394c28d3d11a67600d5d7001e8aaa318f1ad497b50645654bbe3f@%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Thanks,
>> > > > >> Yishun
>> > >
