Sorry I lost track of this thread. If things are in good shape we should probably vote on this and get the deprecation commit through. It seems like a good idea as this has been confusing to users from day one.
-Ewen On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 5:18 AM, UMESH CHAUDHARY <umesh9...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Ewen, > I just edited the KIP to reflect the changes. > > Regards, > Umesh > > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 at 11:00 Ewen Cheslack-Postava <e...@confluent.io> > wrote: > >> Great, looking good. I'd probably be a bit more concrete about the >> Proposed Changes (e.g., "will log an warning if the config is specified" >> and "since the JsonConverter is the default, the configs will be removed >> immediately from the example worker configuration files"). >> >> Other than that this LGTM and I'll be happy to get rid of those settings! >> >> -Ewen >> >> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 2:54 AM, UMESH CHAUDHARY <umesh9...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Ewen, >>> Sorry, I am bit late in responding this. >>> >>> Thanks for your inputs and I've updated the KIP by adding more details >>> to it. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Umesh >>> >>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 at 21:51 Ewen Cheslack-Postava <e...@confluent.io> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 10:21 PM, UMESH CHAUDHARY <umesh9...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ewen, >>>>> Thanks for your comments. >>>>> >>>>> 1) Yes, there are some test and java classes which refer these >>>>> configs, so I will include them as well in "public interface" section of >>>>> KIP. What should be our approach to deal with the classes and tests which >>>>> use these configs: we need to change them to use JsonConverter when >>>>> we plan for removal of these configs right? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I actually meant the references in config/connect-standalone.properties >>>> and config/connect-distributed.properties >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2) I believe we can target the deprecation in 1.0.0 release as it is >>>>> planned in October 2017 and then removal in next major release. Let >>>>> me know your thoughts as we don't have any information for next major >>>>> release (next to 1.0.0) yet. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That sounds fine. Tough to say at this point what our approach to major >>>> version bumps will be since the approach to version numbering is changing a >>>> bit. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 3) Thats a good point and mentioned JIRA can help us to validate the >>>>> usage of any other converters. I will list this down in the KIP. >>>>> >>>>> Let me know if you have some additional thoughts on this. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Umesh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 at 09:27 Ewen Cheslack-Postava <e...@confluent.io> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Umesh, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the KIP. Straightforward and I think it's a good change. >>>>>> Unfortunately it is hard to tell how many people it would affect >>>>>> since we >>>>>> can't tell how many people have adjusted that config, but I think >>>>>> this is >>>>>> the right thing to do long term. >>>>>> >>>>>> A couple of quick things that might be helpful to refine: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Note that there are also some references in the example configs >>>>>> that we >>>>>> should remove. >>>>>> * It's nice to be explicit about when the removal is planned. This >>>>>> lets us >>>>>> set expectations with users for timeframe (especially now that we >>>>>> have time >>>>>> based releases), allows us to give info about the removal timeframe >>>>>> in log >>>>>> error messages, and lets us file a JIRA against that release so we >>>>>> remember >>>>>> to follow up. Given the update to 1.0.0 for the next release, we may >>>>>> also >>>>>> need to adjust how we deal with deprecations/removal if we don't want >>>>>> to >>>>>> have to wait all the way until 2.0 to remove (though it is unclear how >>>>>> exactly we will be handling version bumps from now on). >>>>>> * Migration path -- I think this is the major missing gap in the KIP. >>>>>> Do we >>>>>> need a migration path? If not, presumably it is because people aren't >>>>>> using >>>>>> any other converters in practice. Do we have some way of validating >>>>>> this ( >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3988 might be pretty >>>>>> convincing >>>>>> evidence)? If there are some users using other converters, how would >>>>>> they >>>>>> migrate to newer versions which would no longer support that? >>>>>> >>>>>> -Ewen >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:37 AM, UMESH CHAUDHARY <umesh9...@gmail.com >>>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> > Hi there, >>>>>> > Resending as probably missed earlier to grab your attention. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Regards, >>>>>> > Umesh >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>>> > From: UMESH CHAUDHARY <umesh9...@gmail.com> >>>>>> > Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 11:04 >>>>>> > Subject: [DISCUSS] KIP-174 - Deprecate and remove internal converter >>>>>> > configs in WorkerConfig >>>>>> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Hello All, >>>>>> > I have added a KIP recently to deprecate and remove internal >>>>>> converter >>>>>> > configs in WorkerConfig.java class because these have ultimately >>>>>> just >>>>>> > caused a lot more trouble and confusion than it is worth. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Please find the KIP here >>>>>> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- >>>>>> > 174+-+Deprecate+and+remove+internal+converter+configs+in+ >>>>>> WorkerConfig> >>>>>> > and >>>>>> > the related JIRA here <https://issues.apache.org/ >>>>>> jira/browse/KAFKA-5540>. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Appreciate your review and comments. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Regards, >>>>>> > Umesh >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>
