Yeah, we can do that. Not sure what we might want to add there, but makes
sense to keep things flexible. Updated the KIP text to reflect this.
-Ewen
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Hey Ewen,
>
> Just a quick question. It looks like we're returning a simple array
> containing the classnames. Would it make sense to return a set of objects
> instead? For example:
>
> [
> { "class": "org.apache.kafka.connect.file.FileStreamSourceConnector"},
> { "class": "org.apache.kafka.connect.file.FileStreamSinkConnector" }
> ]
>
> Then we'd be able to include additional fields later without breaking
> compatibility. Other than that, it makes sense to me.
>
> -Jason
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava <e...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It was pointed out that we've been playing a bit fast and loose with API
> > additions in Kafka. I think it's worth discussing a lighter weight
> process
> > for APIs that are still marked unstable, but for the time being we'll add
> > KIPs before adjusting these APIs.
> >
> > To that end, I'd like to discuss (and hopefully quickly move to a vote)
> an
> > API to list connector classes. Here's the KIP:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-51+-+List+Connectors+REST+API
> >
> > This is a very small addition and already has a patch prepared.
> >
> > -Ewen
> >
>
--
Thanks,
Ewen
