gt;>>> On 12/20/17 3:33 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it a little weird to make these constructors public but not
>>> also
>>>>>> expose the corresponding client constructors that use them?
Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/20/17 3:33 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it a little weird to make these constructors public but not
>>> also
>>>>>> expose
constructors that use them?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Jason
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>
19, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> +1
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Tom Bentley <
> t.j.bent...@gmail.com>
> &g
19, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
>
,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it a little weird to make these constructors public but not
>> also
>>>>>> expose the corresponding client constructors that use them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Jason
>>>>>>
lic but not
> also
> > >>> expose the corresponding client constructors that use them?
> > >>>
> > >>> -Jason
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com&g
;>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 18 December 2017 at
>>> vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com
> >>>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for the KIP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --Vahid
> >>>>&g
;>>> On 18 December 2017 at 23:28, Vahid S Hashemian <
>>> vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the KIP.
>>>>>
>>>>
;>>> On 18 December 2017 at 23:28, Vahid S Hashemian <
>>> vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the KIP.
>>>>>
>>>>
vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the KIP.
> > > >
> > > > --Vahid
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
dhashem...@us.ibm.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Thanks for the KIP.
> > >
> > > --Vahid
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
> > > To:
--Vahid
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > Date: 12/18/2017 02:45 PM
> > Subject:Re: [VOTE] KIP-243: Make ProducerConfig and
> ConsumerConfig
> > constructors public
> >
> >
&
+1
On 18 December 2017 at 23:28, Vahid S Hashemian <vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks for the KIP.
>
> --Vahid
>
>
>
> From: Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Date: 12/18/2017 02:45 PM
> Subject
+1
Thanks for the KIP.
--Vahid
From: Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Date: 12/18/2017 02:45 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-243: Make ProducerConfig and ConsumerConfig
constructors public
+1
nit: via "copy and past" an 'e' is missing at
+1
nit: via "copy and past" an 'e' is missing at the end.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Matthias J. Sax
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to propose the following KIP:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>
Hi,
I want to propose the following KIP:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-243%3A+Make+ProducerConfig+and+ConsumerConfig+constructors+public
This is a rather straight forward change, thus I skip the DISCUSS
thread and call for a vote immediately.
-Matthias
signature.asc
19 matches
Mail list logo