My point was that, even though leaving this feature open via the REST
interface was not intended initially and therefore we can treat this as a
bug with respect to its deprecation,
I believe it'd be good to document its removal with KIP-404, since it's de
facto part of the public interface of the REST api.

But I don't feel too strong about whether we proceed with a KIP or just a
PR.

Best,
Konstantine.

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:10 PM Oleksandr Diachenko <
alex.diache...@confluent.io> wrote:

> Konstantine,
>
> Just to clarify, this option(*rest.wadl.enable*), is proposed to be
> introduced in the KIP,
> it was never used anywhere else than in unit tests, as a part of PR for the
> KIP.
> So no public interface changes are needed if we proceed without exposing
> the option.
> WDYT?
>
> Regards, Alex.
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:19 AM Konstantine Karantasis <
> konstant...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for considering removal Alex.
> > I totally agree with your assessment. Still, I'd be in favor of making
> > KIP-404 a small KIP that describes that this option is now being
> disabled.
> > (If I'm not mistaken, one place I've noticed this feature being used is
> in
> > Connect's unit tests for the rest interface).
> >
> > Konstantine
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 5:00 PM Oleksandr Diachenko <
> > alex.diache...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > > Konstantine and Jason,
> > >
> > > I do agree that this functionality was not documented, and most likely
> > not
> > > intended to be present.
> > > Therefore we can consider it as not a part of the public interface, and
> > > current behavior as not expected.
> > > Hence, addressing the issue by just disabling the WADL output seems
> like
> > a
> > > viable solution to me.
> > >
> > > In order to proceed, do we need this KIP at all, or creating a new JIRA
> > and
> > > fixing it as a bug without
> > > changes in public interfaces are sufficient?
> > >
> > > Regards, Alex.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 4:18 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > >
> > > > I think WADL support was likely unintentional, so this could be
> treated
> > > as
> > > > more of a bug. Unless we think it's a good idea to support it going
> > > > forward, I'd suggest going with the rejected alternative of just
> > turning
> > > it
> > > > off. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Jason
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 3:06 PM Oleksandr Diachenko <
> > > > alex.diache...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks, everyone for taking the time to review the KIP.
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like there are no major objections on it, so I will start
> > > voting
> > > > > thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards, Alex.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:50 PM Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Alex. The KIP looks good to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Randall
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:08 PM Guozhang Wang <
> wangg...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alex,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for putting up this KIP. The proposal lgtm.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 7:41 PM Oleksandr Diachenko <
> > > > > > odiache...@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussing for the following KIP:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-404%3A+Add+Kafka+Connect+configuration+parameter+for+disabling+WADL+output+on+OPTIONS+request
> > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The KIP proposes to add a configuration parameter for Connect
> > > > Worker,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > would allow to not expose WADL information in Connect REST
> api
> > > > > > responces.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Feedback is appreciated, thanks in advance.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards, Alex.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to