Hi Eric Thank you for writing the KIP.
Standardizing the internal variables and classes as per a convention is a good idea. Even better would be to enforce that convention using check style rules so that the convention is enforced via a mechanism in the future code. You don’t need a KIP for it. However, I am not able to appreciate the benefit of changing the external interfaces for the sake of alignment. Keeping two similar names, as you proposed for backward compatibility, only adds to the additional overhead in code maintenance (reduces readability and adds to confusion). This cost, just to get a better aligned conventional does not seem worthwhile to me. Is there an obvious benefit that I am missing here which would make this proposal a good trade off with the cost? — Divij Vaidya On Thu 6. Jun 2024 at 21:13, Eric Lu <erickandmorty2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I wanted to follow-up on the discussion thread since I have not received > anything yet. > > Best regards, > > Eric > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 12:39 PM Eric Lu <erickandmorty2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to start a discussion thread for my KIP: > > KIP-1052: Align the naming convention for config and default variables in > > *Config classes > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1052%3A+Align+the+naming+convention+for+config+and+default+variables+in+*Config+classes > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Eric > > >
