Thank you Bruno/Matthew for your comments. I agree using null does seem error prone. However I think using a singleton list of [-1] might be better in terms of usability, I am saying this because the KIP also has a provision to return an empty list to refer to dropping the record. So, an empty optional and an empty list have totally different meanings which could get confusing.
Let me know what you think. Thanks! Sagar. On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:30 PM Matthew Benedict de Detrich <matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io.invalid> wrote: > I also concur with this, having an Optional in the type makes it very > clear what’s going on and better signifies an absence of value (or in this > case the broadcast value). > > -- > Matthew de Detrich > Aiven Deutschland GmbH > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > m: +491603708037 > w: aiven.io e: matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io > On 24. Aug 2022, 14:19 +0200, dev@kafka.apache.org, wrote: > > > > 2. > > I would prefer changing the return type of partitions() to > > Optional<List<Integer>> and using Optional.empty() as the broadcast > > value. IMO, The chances that an implementation returns null due to a bug > > is much higher than that an implementation returns an empty Optional due > > to a bug. >
