I didn't sense much resistance in that thread, just an effort to keep the streams and core client config APIs consistent ;).
I'd prefer seeing a KIP for a more general improvement, but this change seems harmless and improves consistency between the clients, so +1 from me. -Jason On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> wrote: > I personally love the builder pattern idea. There was some push back in > the past though from some people. > > cf https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4436 > > Happy to propose the builder pattern but than we should have a proper > DISCUSS thread. Maybe we do this as a follow up and just do this KIP as-is? > > > -Matthias > > On 12/21/17 10:28 AM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > Hey Matthias, > > > > Let me suggest an alternative. As you have mentioned, these config > classes > > do not give users much benefit currently. Maybe we change that? I think > > many users would appreciate having a builder for configuration since it > > provides type safety and is generally a much friendlier pattern to work > > with programmatically. Users could then do something like this: > > > > ConsumerConfig config = ConsumerConfig.newBuilder() > > .setBootstrapServers("localhost:9092") > > .setGroupId("group") > > .setRequestTimeout(15, TimeUnit.SECONDS) > > .build(); > > > > Consumer consumer = new KafkaConsumer(config); > > > > An additional benefit of this is that it gives us a better way to expose > > config deprecations. In any case, it would make it less odd to expose the > > public constructor without giving users anything useful to do with the > > class. > > > > What do you think? > > > > -Jason > > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > >> It's tailored for internal usage. I think client constructors don't > >> benefit from accepting those config objects. We just want to be able to > >> access the default values for certain parameters. > >> > >> From a user point of view, it's actually boiler plate code if you pass > >> in a config object instead of a plain Properties object because the > >> config object itself is immutable. > >> > >> I actually create a JIRA to remove the constructors from KafkaStreams > >> that do accept StreamsConfig for exact this reason: > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6386 > >> > >> > >> -Matthias > >> > >> > >> On 12/20/17 3:33 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > >>> Hi Matthias, > >>> > >>> Isn't it a little weird to make these constructors public but not also > >>> expose the corresponding client constructors that use them? > >>> > >>> -Jason > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> +1 > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> +1 > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> +1 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 18 December 2017 at 23:28, Vahid S Hashemian < > >>>>> vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --Vahid > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> From: Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> To: dev@kafka.apache.org > >>>>>>> Date: 12/18/2017 02:45 PM > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-243: Make ProducerConfig and > >>>>>> ConsumerConfig > >>>>>>> constructors public > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> nit: via "copy and past" an 'e' is missing at the end. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Matthias J. Sax < > >>>>> matth...@confluent.io> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I want to propose the following KIP: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki. > >>>>>>> apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_ > >>>>>>> iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=Q_itwloTQj3_xUKl7Nzswo6KE4Nj- > >>>>>>> kjJc7uSVcviKUc&m=JToRX4-HeVsRoOekIz18ht-YLMe-T21MttZTgbxB4ag&s= > >>>>>>> 6aZjPCc9e00raokVPKvx1BxwDOHyCuKNgtBXPMeoHy4&e= > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 243%3A+Make+ProducerConfig+and+ConsumerConfig+constructors+public > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This is a rather straight forward change, thus I skip the DISCUSS > >>>>>>>> thread and call for a vote immediately. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -Matthias > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> -- Guozhang > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > >
