KIP-50 as defined is very small. I don't see any harm in putting it in as
is and then tackling the follow up work.


On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote:

> Thanks Grant. I wonder if KIP-50 should just be done as part of this work.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > My work with KIP-4 found that many of the Scala classes used in the
> > Authorizer interface are needed in the Clients package when adding the
> > various ACL requests and responses. I also found that we don't have
> > standard Exceptions defined for the authorizer interface. This means that
> > when I add the Authorizer calls to the broker and wire protocols all
> > exceptions will be reported as an "Unknown Error" back to the user via
> the
> > wire protocol.
> >
> > I have written more about it on the KIP-4 wiki and created jiras to track
> > those issues (See below). I think we should wrap up this KIP as is and
> > tackle the Java/Exception changes as a part of those jiras/kips.
> >
> >    - KIP-4 "Follow Up Changes"
> >    <
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-4+-+Command+line+and+centralized+administrative+operations#KIP-4-Commandlineandcentralizedadministrativeoperations-FollowUpChangesfollow-up-changes
> > >
> >    - KAFKA-3509 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3509>:
> > Provide
> >    an Authorizer interface using the Java client enumerator classes
> >    - KAFKA-3507 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3507>:
> Define
> >    standard exceptions for the Authorizer interface
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Grant
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Ismael,
> > >
> > > Yeah I think this is a minor cleanliness thing. Since this is kind of a
> > > power user interface I don't feel strongly either way.
> > >
> > > My motivation with Scala is just that we've tried to move to having the
> > > public interfaces be Java, and as a group we definitely struggled a lot
> > > with understanding and maintaining Scala compatibility in the older
> > > clients.
> > >
> > > -Jay
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Jay,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:48 AM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Given that we're breaking compatibility anyway should we:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We are not breaking source compatibility since the new method has a
> > > default
> > > > implementation. I take it that you mean binary compatibility?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 1. Remove the get prefix on this method and the existing one which
> > > > violate
> > > > > our own code style guidelines (Oops! Kind of sad we went through
> the
> > > > whole
> > > > > KIP process and no one even flagged this)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I did flag this during the discussion and Ashish said he would change
> > it
> > > if
> > > > other people felt that it should be changed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2. Move the interface out of scala to be a normal Java interface
> > > > >
> > > > > This breaks source compatibility but probably what we should have
> > done
> > > > > originally I suspect. Probably there are few enough implementations
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > > that it is better to just rip the bandaid off.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you please explain the motivation? It did come up in previous
> > > > discussions that some things like Operation and ResourceType should
> be
> > in
> > > > the clients library, but not Authorizer itself. Are we saying that
> any
> > > > pluggable interface should be in Java so that users can implement it
> > > > without including the Scala library?
> > > >
> > > > Grant, you originally suggested that some things would have to be in
> > the
> > > > Java side as well. Can you please elaborate on this?
> > > >
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Grant Henke
> > Software Engineer | Cloudera
> > gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke
> >
>



-- 
Grant Henke
Software Engineer | Cloudera
gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke

Reply via email to