This vote has been silent for a few weeks now but I think this would be a very useful feature.
Did it just slip through busy inboxes or are there reasons why committers have not voted ? On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a PR for this (https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4281) in case > anyone wants to look at the implementation in detail, but right now this > KIP still lacks any committer votes. > > Cheers, > > Tom > > On 22 November 2017 at 17:32, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I just wanted to highlight to committers that although this KIP has three >> non-binding votes, it currently lacks any binding votes: Any feedback would >> be appreciated. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tom >> >> On 7 November 2017 at 20:42, Stephane Maarek <steph...@simplemachines.com. >> au> wrote: >> >>> Okay makes sense thanks! As you said maybe in the future (or now), it's >>> worth starting a server java dependency jar that's not called "client". >>> Probably a debate for another day ( >>> >>> Tom, crossing fingers to see more votes on this! Good stuff >>> >>> >>> On 7/11/17, 9:51 pm, "Ismael Juma" <isma...@gmail.com on behalf of >>> ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: >>> >>> The idea is that you only depend on a Java jar. The core jar includes >>> the >>> Scala version in the name and you should not care about that when >>> implementing a Java interface. >>> >>> Ismael >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Stephane Maarek < >>> steph...@simplemachines.com.au> wrote: >>> >>> > Thanks ! >>> > >>> > How about a java folder package in the core then ? It's not a >>> separate jar >>> > and it's still java? >>> > >>> > Nonetheless I agree these are details. I just got really confused >>> when >>> > trying to write my policy and would hope that confusion is not >>> shared by >>> > others because it's a "client " class although should only reside >>> within a >>> > broker >>> > >>> > On 7 Nov. 2017 9:04 pm, "Ismael Juma" <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: >>> > >>> > The location of the policies is fine. Note that the package _does >>> not_ >>> > include clients in the name. If we ever have enough server side >>> only code >>> > to merit a separate JAR, we can do that and it's mostly compatible >>> (users >>> > would only have to update their build dependency). Generally, all >>> public >>> > APIs going forward will be in Java. >>> > >>> > Ismael >>> > >>> > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Stephane Maarek < >>> > steph...@simplemachines.com.au> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi Tom, >>> > > >>> > > Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine >>> (the >>> > > compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy >>> to be >>> > > implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer) >>> > > It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code. >>> > > >>> > > Thanks! >>> > > Stephane >>> > > >>> > > Kind regards, >>> > > Stephane >>> > > >>> > > [image: Simple Machines] >>> > > >>> > > Stephane Maarek | Developer >>> > > >>> > > +61 416 575 980 >>> > > steph...@simplemachines.com.au >>> > > simplemachines.com.au >>> > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010 >>> > > >>> > > On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > Hi Stephane, >>> > > > >>> > > > The vote on this KIP is on-going. >>> > > > >>> > > > I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and >>> Mickael >>> > > would >>> > > > have to to not disagree with them. >>> > > > >>> > > > The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now. >>> I don't >>> > > know >>> > > > the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that >>> it's not >>> > > > ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the >>> > > situation >>> > > > with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side >>> > extensions >>> > > > points which users can provide their own implementations of. I >>> don't >>> > know >>> > > > whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala >>> and >>> > java >>> > > > code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if >>> these >>> > > > server-side policies were moved. >>> > > > >>> > > > Cheers, >>> > > > >>> > > > Tom >>> > > > >>> > > > On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek < >>> > > steph...@simplemachines.com. >>> > > > au >>> > > > > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > Hi Tom, >>> > > > > >>> > > > > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to >>> implement a >>> > > > > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy >>> > > > > (and Alter, etc...) >>> > > > > These policies would have some most basic parameter to check >>> for >>> > > > > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that >>> end users >>> > > can >>> > > > > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the >>> > interface >>> > > so >>> > > > > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP >>> > > > > >>> > > > > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress >>> so I can >>> > > > > propose my KIP. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Finally, have the packages been discussed? >>> > > > > I find it extremely awkward to have the current >>> CreateTopicPolicy >>> > part >>> > > of >>> > > > > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next >>> classes >>> > > you're >>> > > > > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or >>> > > > server/policy. >>> > > > > Unless I'm missing something? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Thanks for driving this >>> > > > > Stephane >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Kind regards, >>> > > > > Stephane >>> > > > > >>> > > > > [image: Simple Machines] >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Stephane Maarek | Developer >>> > > > > >>> > > > > +61 416 575 980 >>> > > > > steph...@simplemachines.com.au >>> > > > > simplemachines.com.au >>> > > > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010 >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley < >>> t.j.bent...@gmail.com> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and >>> > although >>> > > > > there >>> > > > > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any >>> feedback from >>> > > > > > committers would be appreciated. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Thanks, >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Tom >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar < >>> eco...@uk.ibm.com> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the >>> protocol) it >>> > now >>> > > > > > > supersedes KIP-170 >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > +1 non-binding >>> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Edoardo Comar >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > IBM Message Hub >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > From: Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> >>> > > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org >>> > > > > > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21 >>> > > > > > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy >>> interfaces >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to >>> > replace >>> > > > the >>> > > > > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy >>> interface >>> > that >>> > > > also >>> > > > > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in >>> the >>> > > > > AdminClient. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint. >>> com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki. >>> > > > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A- >>> > > > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_ >>> > > > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r= >>> > > > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m= >>> > > tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT- >>> > > > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp >>> > > > D9517uJkCgrCk&e= >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Thanks for your time. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Tom >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above: >>> > > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and >>> Wales with >>> > > > > number >>> > > > > > > 741598. >>> > > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, >>> > Hampshire >>> > > > PO6 >>> > > > > > 3AU >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>
