Randall, not sure about precedence but seemed to me that changing the already submitted KIP would be a nice way to document that a public (even by accident) feature is getting closed. But again, I don't feel too strong about this, so I'm fine with a simple PR instead.
Konstantine. On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 3:14 PM Oleksandr Diachenko < alex.diache...@confluent.io> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback. > > At this point, it seems like the issue should be addressed as a bug, > and this KIP is not relevant anymore. > I will mark this KIP as discarded, create a ticket and proceed with a PR. > > Regards, Alex. > > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 2:36 PM Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
