Hi, Overall the KIP looks good to me. "Ideally, the interface should be called SslFactory and the built-in implementation should be called DefaultSslFactory. This was rejected to improve backwards compatibility for applications that call the SslFactory directly.”
Can you explain why calling SslFactory and DefaultSslFactory cause any issues. For clients the config will point to DefaultSslFactory and similarly on broker side as well. Not sure which cases it will break the backward compatability. -Harsha On Oct 19, 2018, 1:48 PM -0700, Pellerin, Clement <clement_pelle...@ibi.com>, wrote: > I have updated the KIP to use a default constructor in the pluggable SSL > Factory implementation. > I also changed the name of the config to ssl.sslfactory.class and fixed a > typo in the constant names. > I would like your feedback on this version of the KIP. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pellerin, Clement > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 3:11 PM > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > Subject: [DISCUSS] KIP-383 Pluggable interface for SSL Factory > > I would like feedback on this proposal to make it possible to replace > SslFactory with a custom implementation. > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-383%3A++Pluggable+interface+for+SSL+Factory >
