David, thanks for the KIP. This looks like a nice improvement. Explicit over implicit :)
+1, binding -David On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:17 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote: > Thanks, +1 > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:06 PM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Hi Jason, > > > > Thanks for your feedback. You have brought a good point. I did not > consider > > this but your are right. It makes sense to add it as well in order to > able > > to fully > > parse the SyncGroup request/response. Let me update the KIP. > > > > Thanks, > > David > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:52 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > Just one question. In addition to including the protocol type, I'm > > > wondering if there is value in adding the protocol name to SyncGroup? > > This > > > would potentially give you the ability to parse the "user data" field > in > > > the consumer group schema. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jason > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:35 AM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-559: Make the Kafka Protocol > > > Friendlier > > > > with L7 Proxies. > > > > > > > > The KIP is here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-559%3A+Make+the+Kafka+Protocol+Friendlier+with+L7+Proxies > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > -- David Arthur
