Hello!
I am struggling to understand the context of the suggested change. Is the point
to add dynamic validation? In other words, is the idea that when a person adds
another SASL module it would automatically be picked up by the validation
framework and the validation list would automatically change to ("GSSAPI",
"PLAIN", "SCRAM-SHA-256", "SCRAM-SHA-512", "OAUTHBEARER",
"MY-AWESOME-CUSTOM-MECHANISM")? If so, could this be explained a bit more
clearly in the motivation - when I read the KIP for the first time I was left
with the impression that you are proposing to add validation to a configuration
which didn't have any validation to begin with.
Best,
Christo
On 08/04/2022, 09:54, "Riven Sun" <riven....@zoom.us.INVALID> wrote:
Hi devs, I've created a KIP that aims to add the corresponding validator
to the config where the validator is missing.
In order for the program to detect these incorrect configurations during
initialization:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-828%3A+Add+the+corresponding+validator+to+the+configuration+where+the+validator+is+missing
Please take a look and let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks. Riven
Sun
