Hi Ron/Harsha/Satish,

Thanks for reviewing the KIP!

We should perhaps have a wider discussion outside this KIP for refactoring
clients so that others who are not following this KIP also notice the
discussion. Satish, would you like to start a discussion thread on dev?

Regards,

Rajini


On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:21 PM Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I felt the same need when we want to add a pluggable API for core
> server functionality. This does not need to be part of this KIP, it
> can be a separate KIP. I can contribute those refactoring changes if
> others are OK with that.
>
> It is better to have a structure like below.
>
> kafka-common:
> common classes which can be used in any of the other modules in Kafka
> like client, Kafka-server-common and server etc.
>
> kafka-client-common:
> common classes which can be used in the client module. This can be
> part of client module itself.
>
> kafka-server-common:
> classes required only for kafka-server.
>
> Thanks.
> Satish.
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 9:28 PM Harsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the KIP Rajini.
> > Quick thought, it would be good to have a common module outside of
> clients
> > that only applies to server side interfaces & changes. It looks like we
> are
> > increasingly in favor of using Java interface for pluggable modules  on
> the
> > broker side.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Harsha
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 2:31 PM, Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I have created a KIP to replace the Scala Authorizer API with a new
> Java
> > > API:
> > >
> > > -
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/
> > > KIP-504+-+Add+new+Java+Authorizer+Interface
> > >
> > > This is replacement for KIP-50 which was accepted but never merged.
> Apart
> > > from moving to a Java API consistent with other pluggable interfaces
> in the
> > > broker, KIP-504 also attempts to address known limitations in the
> > > authorizer. If you have come across other limitations that you would
> like
> > > to see addressed in the new API, please raise these on the discussion
> > > thread so that we can consider those too. All suggestions and feedback
> are
> > > welcome.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > Rajini
> > >
>

Reply via email to