It'd be great to have it on trunk. As I mentioned under jira ticket (KAFKA-1845) current implementation lacks correct Importance settings. I'd be grateful if somebody could help me with it (a simple mapping between config setting and importance or comments right in the review board would suffice).
Thanks, Andrii Biletskyi On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Strong +1 from me (obviously). Lots of good reasons to do it: > consistency, code reuse, better validations, etc, etc. > > I had one comment on the patch in RB, but it can also be refactored as > follow up JIRA to avoid blocking everyone who is waiting on this. > > Gwen > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Joe Stein <joe.st...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > Hey, I wanted to start a quick convo around some changes on trunk. Not > sure > > this requires a KIP since it is kind of internal and shouldn't affect > users > > but we can decide if so and link this thread to that KIP if so (and keep > > the discussion going on the thread if makes sense). > > > > Before making any other broker changes I wanted to see what folks thought > > about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1845 ConfigDec patch. > > > > I agree it will be nice to standardize and use one configuration and > > validation library across the board. It helps in a lot of different > changes > > we have been discussing also in 0.8.3 and think we should make sure it is > > what we want if so then: review, commit and keep going. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > /******************************************* > > Joe Stein > > Founder, Principal Consultant > > Big Data Open Source Security LLC > > http://www.stealth.ly > > Twitter: @allthingshadoop <http://www.twitter.com/allthingshadoop> > > ********************************************/ >
