It would definitely be nice to use the jdk8 CompletableFuture. I think that's a bit of a separate discussion, though, since it has such heavy compatibility implications.
How about making KIP-218 backwards compatible? As a starting point, you can change KafkaFuture#BiConsumer to an interface with no compatibility implications, since there are currently no public functions exposed that use it. That leaves KafkaFuture#Function, which is publicly used now. For the purposes of KIP-218, how about adding a new interface FunctionInterface? Then you can add a function like this: > public abstract <R> KafkaFuture<R> thenApply(FunctionInterface<T, R> > function); And mark the older declaration as deprecated: > @deprecated > public abstract <R> KafkaFuture<R> thenApply(Function<T, R> function); This is a 100% compatible way to make things nicer for java 8. cheers, Colin On Thu, Nov 2, 2017, at 10:38, Steven Aerts wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Nice observation. > I changed "Rejected Alternatives" section to "Other Alternatives", as > I see myself as too much of an outsider to the kafka community to be > able to decide without this discussion. > > I see two major factors to decide: > - how soon will KIP-118 (drop support of java 7) be implemented? > - for which reasons do we drop backwards compatibility for public > interfaces marked as Evolving > > If KIP-118 which is scheduled for version 2.0.0 is going to be > implemented soon, I agree with you that replacing KafkaFuture with > CompletableFuture (or CompletionStage) is a preferable option. > But as I am not familiar with the roadmap it is difficult to tell for me. > > > Thanks, > > > Steven > > > 2017-11-02 11:27 GMT+01:00 Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com>: > > Hi Steven, > > > > I notice you've renamed the template's "Rejected Alternatives" section to > > "Other Alternatives", suggesting they're not rejected yet (or, if you have > > rejected them, I think you should give your reasons). > > > > Personally, I'd like to understand the arguments against simply replacing > > KafkaFuture with CompletableFuture in Kafka 2.0. In other words, if we were > > starting without needing to support Java 7 what would be the arguments for > > having our own KafkaFuture? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Tom > > > > On 1 November 2017 at 16:01, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> KAFKA-4423 is still open. > >> When would Java 7 be dropped ? > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > bq. Wait for a kafka release which will not support java 7 anymore > >> > > > >> > > Do you want to raise a separate thread for the above ? > >> > > > >> > > >> > There is already a KIP for this so a separate thread is not needed. > >> > > >> > Ismael > >> > > >>
