Hi Ran, Thanks for adding the compatibility explanation and the new schema type. The proposal looks good to me.
Regards, Penghui On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 2:47 AM Ran Gao <r...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks for the suggestions, I'll add them to the PIP. > > Thanks, > Ran Gao > > On 2025/06/03 00:15:58 PengHui Li wrote: > > Thanks for the proposal. > > > > The motivation looks good to me, users can connect to their preferred or > > customized schema registry with this proposal, which can get rid of the > > limitation from the Pulsar built-in schema registry. > > > > I have a few questions about the migration or compatibility. > > > > - For a topic that already uses pulsar's built-in schema, will the client > > be able to switch to an external schema registry? As I understand, we > > should reject this case since it will mess up the schema compatibility > with > > 2 schema registries > > - And how about the old version(without external schema registry support) > > consumers connected to the topic that has schema from external schema > > registry? > > > > We probably need to consider adding another schema type instead of using > > the bytes schema. If the topic has a schema from an external schema > > registry, which means the Pulsar broker will not manage schemas for this > > topic. > > > > We should add more details about the compatibility to let users > understand > > the proper way to move to the external schema registry. > > > > Regards, > > Penghui > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 9:23 AM Ran Gao <r...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi, Pulsar Community. > > > > > > I opened a new PIP to provide the Pulsar client with the ability to > > > integrate with a third-party schema registry service. I'm looking > > > forward to your suggestions! > > > > > > link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/24328 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ran Gao >
