Konstatine, IIUC your suggestion is to change KIP-404 to document the removal of the support for WADL since it was never intended to be exposed, and to no longer make it an option. I agree we could make that change, but I'm also wondering if there is precedence for this kind of a KIP. Anyone know?
If there is no precedence, then I would be fine with simply addressing this as a PR and backporting -- the WADL operation was never documented nor described in any of the prior KIPs, and it seems like an implementation detail that leaked out accidentally. Randall On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 4:15 PM Konstantine Karantasis < konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
