I'm sorry for ignoring what I said. There is really no need to consider the admin command processing of the broker side.
Thanks, sinan SiNan Liu <liusinan1...@gmail.com>于2025年6月26日 周四11:34写道： > 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 >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
