Hmmm... So the new interface, returns an instance of a class that implements the interface. This sounds a little bit like an anti-pattern? Shouldn't interfaces actually not know anything about classes that implement the interface?
-Matthias On 6/10/19 11:22 AM, Andy Coates wrote: > `AdminClient` would be deprecated purely because it would no longer serve > any purpose and would be virtually empty, getting all of its implementation > from the new interfar. It would be nice to remove this from the API at the > next major version bump, hence the need to deprecate. > > `AdminClient.create()` would return what it does today, (so not a breaking > change). > > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 22:24, Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> The existing `AdminClient` will be marked as deprecated. >> >> What's the reasoning behind this? I'm fine with the other changes, but >> would prefer to keep the existing public API intact if it's not hurting >> anything. >> >> Also, what will AdminClient.create() return? Would it be a breaking change? >> >> Ryanne >> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 11:17 AM Andy Coates <a...@confluent.io> wrote: >> >>> Hi folks >>> >>> As there's been no chatter on this KIP I'm assuming it's non-contentious, >>> (or just boring), hence I'd like to call a vote for KIP-476: >>> >>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-476%3A+Add+Java+AdminClient+Interface >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Andy >>> >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
