cmccabe commented on a change in pull request #9032: URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9032#discussion_r472507947
########## File path: clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/admin/DescribeUserScramCredentialsResult.java ########## @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more + * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with + * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. + * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0 + * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with + * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. + * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and + * limitations under the License. + */ + +package org.apache.kafka.clients.admin; + +import org.apache.kafka.common.KafkaFuture; +import org.apache.kafka.common.annotation.InterfaceStability; + +import java.util.Map; +import java.util.Objects; + +/** + * The result of the {@link Admin#describeUserScramCredentials()} call. + * + * The API of this class is evolving, see {@link Admin} for details. + */ +@InterfaceStability.Evolving +public class DescribeUserScramCredentialsResult { + private final KafkaFuture<Map<String, UserScramCredentialsDescription>> future; Review comment: Thinking about this more, I would prefer having both a list RPC to show everything, and a describe RPC to show only some things. There are a few reasons why. One is that even though we currently only make one RPC, in the future we might make more than one. In that case we would want multiple futures. Another is that the general pattern in Kafka is that list RPCs show everything, but describe RPCs show only some things. It's true that there are some places where we violate this pattern, but I still think it's worth trying to follow where we can. Maybe this should be documented better so that when we add new RPCs, people aren't confused about whether to use "list" or "describe." I also feel like in AdminClient, errors should be handled with futures pretty much all the time, unless there is a really strong reason not to. This allows people to use an async style of programming. In contrast, mixing in some errors that aren't futures, but need to be checked explicitly is very likely to confuse people. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
