> Could you please share more details about how the change breaks the broker > public API?
For example, this PR[1] change the public API from non-argument to one argument. It will cause other libraries also change for it. I'm not sure that ensuring the compatibility of method signatures is worthwhile, but I think it's a bit annoying for other libraries. https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/16425/files#r1041758135 Best, Mattison On Dec 7, 2022, 12:50 +0800, PengHui Li <codelipeng...@gmail.com>, wrote: > Hi mattison > > Could you please share more details about how the change breaks the broker > public API? > It will help us to understand the compatibility issue. > > Thanks, > Penghui > > > On Dec 7, 2022, at 12:39, mattisonc...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Hi, All > > > > Recently, I realised we don't have any rules for breaking pulsar broker > > public API. [1] > > > > Since pulsar has extended abilities like protocol handler, additional > > servlet, interceptor etc., many libraries rely on broker public API. > > I'm not sure if we've got to ensure compatibility for this. Otherwise, it > > introduces much work in resolving compatibility for other OSS contributors. > > > > Best, > > Mattison > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/16425 >
