+1. Normally I'd be more of a stickler for compatibility, but this is new, I think it's worth emphasizing that unstable actually means unstable & might require recompile (and maybe even adapting code when we think the change warrants it), and I think the impact is relatively low since those adopting the new consumer know that it's very new. Agreed with Guozhang that better documenting the annotations will help (and personally apologize for that since we hastily introduced the annotations to give ourselves wiggle room on Connect).
-Ewen On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > I'd like to open the vote for KIP-45. We've discussed several > alternatives > > on the mailing list and in the KIP call, but this vote is only on the > > documented KIP: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61337336. > > This > > change will not be compatible with 0.9, but it will provide a cleaner API > > long term for users to work with. This is really the last chance to make > an > > incompatible change like this with 0.10 shortly on the way, but > compatible > > options (such as method overloading) could be brought up again in the > > future if we find it's needed. > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > > -- Thanks, Ewen
