ijuma commented on a change in pull request #10066: URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10066#discussion_r571491307
########## File path: generator/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/message/RequestApiScope.java ########## @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more + * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with + * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. + * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0 + * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with + * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. + * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and + * limitations under the License. + */ +package org.apache.kafka.message; + +import com.fasterxml.jackson.annotation.JsonProperty; + +public enum RequestApiScope { + @JsonProperty("zkBroker") + ZK_BROKER, + + @JsonProperty("broker") + BROKER, + + @JsonProperty("controller") + CONTROLLER, + + @JsonProperty("raft") + RAFT; Review comment: If we're talking about scopes, wouldn't it be more intuitive if one of them was `CLIENT`? Since these definitions go into the protocol definition files that are used by other clients, this could be used to differentiate between protocol apis that clients need to support versus protocol apis that are used for inter broker and broker -> controller communication. ########## File path: checkstyle/import-control.xml ########## @@ -99,6 +100,7 @@ <allow pkg="org.apache.kafka.common.config" /> <allow pkg="org.apache.kafka.common.metrics" /> <allow pkg="org.apache.kafka.common.security" /> + <allow class="org.apache.kafka.common.requests.ApiVersionsResponse" /> Review comment: The network package is not meant to access requests, right? Could we make it work by changing the supplier to something more generic? ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
