Hi All, I've updated the KIP to move the `create` factory method implementation into a new `AdminClients` utility class, rather than on the new `Admin` interface.
Satish, As above, the KIP has been updated to only have the operations on the `Admin` api. As for the overhead of dynamic proxies... the use of dynamic proxies is totally up to the users of the library. In KSQL we use dynamic proxies because the overhead is acceptable and it decouples us from additions to the client interfaces. Others may decide otherwise for their project. By making the admin api an interface we're empowering users to choose the right approach for them. This is the primary motivation for the KIP from my point of view. However, it also brings it inline with the other Kafka clients, and gives users the freedom to do what they want, rather than requiring the use of an abstract base class. Thanks, Andy On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 04:55, Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > Thanks for the KIP. This is a good change and it gives the user a better > handle on Admin client usage. I agree with the proposal except the new > `Admin` interface having all the methods from `AdminClient` abstract class. > It should be kept clean having only the admin operations as methods from > KafkaClient abstract class but not the factory methods as mentioned in the > earlier mail. > > I know about dynamic proxies(which were widely used in RMI/EJB world). I am > curious about the usecase using dynamic proxies with Admin client > interface. Dynamic proxy can have performance penalty if it is used in > critical path. Is that the primary motivation for creating the KIP? > > Thanks, > Satish. > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:43 PM Andy Coates <a...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > I'm not married to that part. That was only done to keep it more or less > > inline with what's already there, (an abstract class that has a factory > > method that returns a subclass.... sounds like the same anti-pattern ;)) > > > > An alternative would to have an `AdminClients` utility class to create > the > > admin client. > > > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 19:31, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > Hmmm... > > > > > > So the new interface, returns an instance of a class that implements > the > > > interface. This sounds a little bit like an anti-pattern? Shouldn't > > > interfaces actually not know anything about classes that implement the > > > interface? > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > On 6/10/19 11:22 AM, Andy Coates wrote: > > > > `AdminClient` would be deprecated purely because it would no longer > > serve > > > > any purpose and would be virtually empty, getting all of its > > > implementation > > > > from the new interfar. It would be nice to remove this from the API > at > > > the > > > > next major version bump, hence the need to deprecate. > > > > > > > > `AdminClient.create()` would return what it does today, (so not a > > > breaking > > > > change). > > > > > > > > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 22:24, Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >>> The existing `AdminClient` will be marked as deprecated. > > > >> > > > >> What's the reasoning behind this? I'm fine with the other changes, > but > > > >> would prefer to keep the existing public API intact if it's not > > hurting > > > >> anything. > > > >> > > > >> Also, what will AdminClient.create() return? Would it be a breaking > > > change? > > > >> > > > >> Ryanne > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 11:17 AM Andy Coates <a...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi folks > > > >>> > > > >>> As there's been no chatter on this KIP I'm assuming it's > > > non-contentious, > > > >>> (or just boring), hence I'd like to call a vote for KIP-476: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-476%3A+Add+Java+AdminClient+Interface > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> > > > >>> Andy > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
