Thanks for the KIP! I am don't have any further comments.
For Guozhang's comment: if we mention anything about `toString()`, we should make explicit that `toString()` output is still not public contract and users should not rely on the output. Furhtermore, for the actual uses output, I would replace "topic:" by "extractor class:" to make the difference obvious. I am just hoping that people actually to not rely on `toString()` what defeats the purpose to the `TopologyDescription` class that was introduced to avoid the dependency... (Just a side comment, not really related to this KIP proposal itself). If there are no further comments in the next days, feel free to start the VOTE and open a PR. -Matthias On 6/22/18 6:04 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > Thanks for writing the KIP! > > I'm +1 on the proposed changes over all. One minor suggestion: we should > also mention that the `Sink#toString` will also be updated, in a way that > if `topic()` returns null, use the other call, etc. This is because > although we do not explicitly state the following logic as public protocols: > > ``` > > "Sink: " + name + " (topic: " + topic() + ")\n <-- " + > nodeNames(predecessors); > > > ``` > > There are already some users that rely on `topology.describe().toString()` > to have runtime checks on the returned string values, so changing this > means that their app will break and hence need to make code changes. > > Guozhang > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Nishanth Pradeep <nishanth...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello Everyone, >> >> I have created a new KIP to discuss extending TopologyDescription. You can >> find it here: >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- >> 321%3A+Add+method+to+get+TopicNameExtractor+in+TopologyDescription >> >> Please provide any feedback that you might have. >> >> Best, >> Nishanth Pradeep >> > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
