Yes. Therefore, when you find that the schema type of the topic is
EXTERNAL, just ignore this admin command directly. However, this matter
should be mentioned in the document, and this treatment should also be
added to the code.


Thanks,
sinan


PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org>于2025年6月26日 周四09:06写道:

> The proposal is going to add third-party schema registry integration with
> the Pulsar client.
> The management API will be provided by a third-party schema registry, e,g.
> Confluent schema registry.
> Pulsar-admin API will not manage the Confluent schema registry.
>
> Regards,
> Penghui
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 6:58 PM SiNan Liu <liusinan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't seem to have seen any description of the relevant behaviour of
> > admin api.
> >
> > What should we do when calling pulsar-admin schemas get <topic-name>.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > sinan
> >
> >
> > PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org>于2025年6月24日 周二05:02写道:
> >
> > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to