Not yet a vote, but almost there. Just wanted to clarify reconfiguration before voting.
So the advantage of making `SslEngineFactory` reconfigurable is that it can define custom configs which may be reconfigured. Basically SslEngineFactory can define a set of custom reconfigurable configs and it will get notified when any of them changes. SslFactory on the other hand knows only of Kafka built-in configs. So perhaps a single reconfigurable instance of SslEngineFactory would be useful? On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:13 PM Pellerin, Clement <clement_pelle...@ibi.com> wrote: > Is this a +1 binding vote? > > The KIP says: > Since SslFactory will handle reconfiguration, the idea is to make the > configuration immutable in the pluggable factory. SslFactory would create a > new pluggable factory every time the configuration changes. The pluggable > factory creates its SSLContext when it is configured and never changes it. > It turns out SslFactory does not really need the SSLContext, so it can use > the new pluggable factory as an SSLEngine factory instead. > > I started implementing the KIP but I never finished. I did not see the > point without the necessary binding votes. > I missed the KIP freeze for 2.2.0 yesterday, which means I will not be > able to use that feature in my project even if I implement it. > I was planning to orphan that KIP today, but as you suggest, I will finish > the work and attach a PR before I consider doing that. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rajini Sivaram [mailto:rajinisiva...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 4:35 AM > To: dev > Subject: Re: [VOTE] [REMINDER] KIP-383 Pluggable interface for SSL Factory > > Hi Clement, > > Thanks for the KIP, it is looking good. Do you by any chance have a PR that > you can attach to the JIRA? It wasn't clear to me how the SslEngineFactory > got > the new keystore/truststore if they were reconfigured. I am assuming the > factory is creating the SSLContext and configuring the context. Doesn't > SslEngineFactory need to be Reconfigurable? > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 9:10 PM Harsha <m...@harsha.io> wrote: > > > Hi Rajini, > > Since you helped review the KIP if you don't mind can you vote > > on this KIP. > > Thanks, > > Harsha > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 8:05 AM, Harsha wrote: > > > HI All, > > > We are looking forward to this KIP. Appreciate if others can > > > take a look at the kip and > > > vote on this thread. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Harsha > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018, at 4:41 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > > must be my gmail playing up. This appears to be the DISCUSS thread to > > me... > > > > e > > > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 18:42, Harsha <ka...@harsha.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Damian, > > > > > This is the VOTE thread. There is a DISCUSS thread > > which > > > > > concluded in it. > > > > > > > > > > -Harsha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018, at 5:04 AM, Pellerin, Clement wrote: > > > > > > I did that and nobody came. > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@kafka.apache.org:lte=1M:kip-383 > > > > > > I don't understand why this feature is not more popular. > > > > > > It's the solution to one Jira and a work-around for a handful > more > > Jiras. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Damian Guy [mailto:damian....@gmail.com] > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 7:38 AM > > > > > > To: dev > > > > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] [REMINDER] KIP-383 Pluggable interface for > SSL > > > > > Factory > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Clement, > > > > > > > > > > > > You should start a separate thread for the vote, i.e., one with a > > subject > > > > > > of [VOTE] KIP-383 ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks like you haven't done this? > > > > > > > >
