We deprecated the old Scala consumers and some Stream APIs that I can remember. I can't comment on the Streams APIs, but we don't intend to remove the old Scala consumers before the June 2018 release (we said we'd keep it for at least one year after deprecation).
Ismael Ismael On 21 Jul 2017 12:44 am, "Ewen Cheslack-Postava" <e...@confluent.io> wrote: > Did we deprecate anything in 0.11.0? The one concern with bumping major > versions in consecutive releases is that you may not give people the room > for transition if you deprecate and then immediately remove in the next > release. > > -Ewen > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 on 1.0! > > Are we also going to move to java 8? > > I also think we should drop the Unstable annotations completely. > > > > Cheers, > > Damian > > > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 at 21:36 Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Stevo, > > > > > > Just trying to add to what Ismael has already replied you: > > > > > > > > > > Practice/"features" like protocol version being a parameter, and > > > defaulting > > > > to latest so auto updated with dependency update which introduces new > > > > protocol/behavior should not be used in public client APIs. To switch > > > > between backward incompatible APIs (contract and behaviors), ideally > > user > > > > should explicitly have to change code and not dependency only, but at > > > least > > > > it should be clearly communicated that there are breaking changes to > > > expect > > > > even with just dependency update by e.g. giving major version release > > > clear > > > > meaning. If app dependency on Kafka client library minor.patch on > same > > > > major is updated, and if there's a change in behavior or API > requiring > > > app > > > > code change - it's a bug. > > > > > > > > Change introduced contrary to the SLO, is OK to be reported as bug. > > > > Everything else is improvement or feature request. > > > > > > > > If this was the case, and 1.0.0 was released today with APIs as they > > are > > > > now, Scala client APIs even though deprecated would not break and > > require > > > > refactoring with every 1.* minor/patch release, and would only be > > allowed > > > > to be broken or removed in future major release, like 2.0.0 > > > > > > Just to clarify, my proposal is that moving forward beyond the next > > release > > > we will not make any public API breaking changes in any of the major or > > > minor releases, but will only mark them as "deprecated", and deprecated > > > public APIs will be only considered for removing as early as the next > > major > > > release: so if we mark the scala consumer APIs as deprecated in 1.0.0, > we > > > should only be consider removing it at 2.0.0 or even later. > > > > > > > It should be also clear how long is each version supported - e.g. if > > > > minor.patch had meaning that there are no backward incompatible > > changes, > > > > it's OK to file a bug only for current major.minor.patch; previous > > major > > > > and its last minor.patch can only have patches released up to some > time > > > > like 1 up to 3 months. > > > > > > Currently in practice we have not ever done, for example a bugfix > release > > > on an older major / minor release: i.e. once we have released say > > 0.10.2.0 > > > we did not release 0.10.1.2 any more. So practically speaking we do not > > > have a "support period" for older versions yet, and in the next coming > > > release I do not have plans to propose some concrete policy for that > > > matter. > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:12 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Stevo, > > > > > > > > Thanks for your feedback. We should definitely do a better job of > > > > documenting things. We basically follow semantic versioning, but it's > > > > currently a bit confusing because: > > > > > > > > 1. There are 4 segments in the version. The "0." part should be > ignored > > > > when deciding what is major, minor and patch at the moment, but many > > > people > > > > don't know this. Once we move to 1.0.0, that problem goes away. > > > > > > > > 2. To know what is a public API, you must check the Javadoc ( > > > > https://kafka.apache.org/0110/javadoc/index.html?org/apache/ > > > > kafka/clients/consumer/KafkaConsumer.html). > > > > If it's not listed there, it's not public API. Ideally, it would be > > > obvious > > > > from the package name (i.e. there would be "internals" in the name), > > but > > > we > > > > are not there yet. The exception are the old Scala APIs, but they > have > > > all > > > > been deprecated and they will be removed eventually (the old Scala > > > > consumers won't be removed until the June 2018 release at the > earliest > > in > > > > order to give people time to migrate). > > > > > > > > 3. Even though we are following reasonably common practices, we > haven't > > > > documented them all in one place. It would be great to do it during > the > > > > next release cycle. > > > > > > > > A few comments below. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Stevo Slavić <ssla...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > - APIs not labeled or labeled as stable > > > > > -- change in major version is only one that can break backward > > > > > compatibility (client APIs or behavior) > > > > > > > > > > > > > To clarify, stable APIs should not be changed in an incompatible way > > > > without a deprecation cycle. Independently of whether it's a major > > > release > > > > or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- change in minor version can introduce new features, but not > break > > > > > backward compatibility > > > > > -- change in patch version, is for bug fixes only. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, this has been the case for a while already. Also see > annotations > > > > below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - APIs labeled as evolving can be broken in backward incompatible > way > > > in > > > > > any release, but are assumed less likely to be broken compared to > > > > unstable > > > > > APIs > > > > > - APIs labeled as unstable can be broken in backward incompatible > way > > > in > > > > > any release, major, minor or patch > > > > > > > > > > > > > The relevant annotations do explain this: > > > > > > > > > > > https://kafka.apache.org/0110/javadoc/org/apache/kafka/ > > common/annotation/ > > > > InterfaceStability.html > > > > > > > https://kafka.apache.org/0110/javadoc/org/apache/kafka/ > > common/annotation/ > > > > InterfaceStability.Stable.html > > > > > > > https://kafka.apache.org/0110/javadoc/org/apache/kafka/ > > common/annotation/ > > > > InterfaceStability.Evolving.html > > > > > > > https://kafka.apache.org/0110/javadoc/org/apache/kafka/ > > common/annotation/ > > > > InterfaceStability.Unstable.html > > > > > > > > But we should have a section in our documentation as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > - deprecated stable APIs are treated as any stable APIs, they can > be > > > > > removed only in major release, are not allowed to be changed in > > > backward > > > > > incompatible way in either patch or minor version release > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, but note that stable non-deprecated APIs provide stronger > > > guarantees > > > > in major releases (they can't be changed in an incompatible way). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This means one should be able to upgrade server and > recompile/deploy > > > apps > > > > > with clients to new minor.patch release with dependency version > > change > > > > > being only change needed and there would be no drama. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That should have been the case for a while as long as you are using > > > stable > > > > public APIs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Practice/"features" like protocol version being a parameter, and > > > > defaulting > > > > > to latest so auto updated with dependency update which introduces > new > > > > > protocol/behavior should not be used in public client APIs. To > switch > > > > > between backward incompatible APIs (contract and behaviors), > ideally > > > user > > > > > should explicitly have to change code and not dependency only, but > at > > > > least > > > > > it should be clearly communicated that there are breaking changes > to > > > > expect > > > > > even with just dependency update by e.g. giving major version > release > > > > clear > > > > > meaning. If app dependency on Kafka client library minor.patch on > > same > > > > > major is updated, and if there's a change in behavior or API > > requiring > > > > app > > > > > code change - it's a bug. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, if the protocol bump provides improved behaviour, that is not a > > > > backwards incompatible change though. So, I don't think I agree with > > > this. > > > > Of course, > > > > it does mean that _downgrading_ may cause loss of functionality. > That's > > > OK, > > > > in my opinion. > > > > > > > > Change introduced contrary to the SLO, is OK to be reported as bug. > > > > > Everything else is improvement or feature request. > > > > > > > > > > If this was the case, and 1.0.0 was released today with APIs as > they > > > are > > > > > now, Scala client APIs even though deprecated would not break and > > > require > > > > > refactoring with every 1.* minor/patch release, and would only be > > > allowed > > > > > to be broken or removed in future major release, like 2.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that is the plan for any _public_ Scala client APIs that are > still > > > > present in 1.0.0. The public Scala client APIs are the producer and > > > > consumer, basically. Again, we should make this clear in our > > > documentation. > > > > Note that we have made an effort to keep those APIs compatible for > > quite > > > a > > > > while. It sounds like you have had some issues, were they related to > > > usage > > > > of internal Admin APIs by any chance (since we didn't have a public > > > > AdminClient API until very recently)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It should be also clear how long is each version supported - e.g. > if > > > > > minor.patch had meaning that there are no backward incompatible > > > changes, > > > > > it's OK to file a bug only for current major.minor.patch; previous > > > major > > > > > and its last minor.patch can only have patches released up to some > > time > > > > > like 1 up to 3 months. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure I understood this point correctly. Can you please > > clarify? > > > > > > > > If there are changes in release cadence with new versioning, it > should > > be > > > > > clear too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No changes are planned. We have started time-based releases less > than a > > > > year ago and they seem to be going well. > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > >
