Hi Johnny, Thanks for this KIP.
ken_0: Doesn't this change break backward compatibility? If a user has only implemented the `KafkaPrincipalBuilder` interface, upgrading to this version would result in a compilation error. Changes that break compatibility like this typically need to be reserved for a major release. ken_1: While it's true that in KRaft mode, users are expected to implement both `KafkaPrincipalBuilder` and` KafkaPrincipalSerde`, the current motivation for this change feels a bit weak. It might be helpful to better emphasize why this change is necessary, and provide more context to justify the design decision. Best Regards, Jiunn-Yang > Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@gmail.com> 於 2025年4月8日 下午5:31 寫道： > > hi Johnny > > thanks for this KIP. Some questions are listed below. > > chia_0: > > could you please update the discussion link? > > chia_1: > > There are some discussion before. For example, we can introduce new > interface consisting of KafkaPrincipalSerde and KafkaPrincipalBuilder to > offer better naming. Could you please add them into "Rejected Alternatives"? > > Best, > Chia-Ping > > Johnny Wang <johnny12...@gmail.com> 於 2025年4月8日 週二 下午4:40寫道： > >> Hi all, >> I would like to discuss KIP-1157. >> >> This KIP enforces the implementation of KafkaPrincipalSerde alongside >> KafkaPrincipalBuilder, which is currently only noted in the interface >> comments. >> >> Please take a look and share you thought. >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/1gq9F >> >> Thanks, >> Wang >>
