Hi Gantigmaa Selenge, I think we should have a boolean in the request like "includeFenced" which defaults to false. Then if we can't include the fenced brokers, we throw an UnsupportedVersionException and fall back to the old behavior.
There are two main reasons for this: 1. if we don't do this, we're changing the behavior for old clients in an incompatible way. They used to get only unfenced brokers, now they get both and they have no way of telling which is which. 2. new clients still would like to know whether they're getting everything, or just unfenced brokers, for informational reasons. Probably the command-line tool could print out something like "fenced brokers will not be shown" in the case where it's talking to an old server. Or the tool could have a flag like --show-fenced which fails if it can't be done? best, Colin On Fri, Sep 13, 2024, at 08:28, José Armando García Sancio wrote: > Thanks Gantigmaa. See comments below. The KIP LGTM after this. > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 4:50 AM Gantigmaa Selenge <gsele...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Will this make it more confusing for combined nodes? Users might expect to >> see both controller and broker under ROLES if it is a combined node. Since >> we would be able to output only one depending on the bootstrap option, I >> wonder if it's better to stay consistent with the information in the result >> returned by the API. > > How about ENDPOINT-TYPE for the column name? That matches the keyword > used in the request and better matches the semantic of the output. > > Also, I am okay if you want to leave it out. I thought the user may > find it useful but if you find it confusing we can leave it out. > > Thanks, > -- > -José
