Gaurav, thanks for the KIP.
DA1: The four examples you give of improper usage of the existing
constructor are all Kafka usages, so arguably they are just bugs. Do we
know if ConfigException can be created/thrown by 3rd party code via our
pluggable interfaces? If there are any interface usages, can
Hi Gaurav,
Thanks for the KIP!
I've noticed the lack of Throwable-based constructors in the past, so I'm
glad you're bringing this up for discussion. I think it makes sense to be
able to add more information relevant for debugging configuration issues
directly as a cause.
1. Could you discuss #a
Thanks for your feedback Chia! Please find my answers inline
> On 27 Jan 2025, at 13:32, Chia-Ping Tsai wrote:
>
> hi Gaurav
>
> Thanks for this KIP as I totally agree that `cause` can offer more useful
> information. Please take a look at following small questions.
>
> chia_0: do we need to
hi Gaurav
Thanks for this KIP as I totally agree that `cause` can offer more useful
information. Please take a look at following small questions.
chia_0: do we need to deprecate existent constructor? It seems to me that is
not conflict to the new one.
chia_1: Have you consider adding `ConfigEx
Hi Everyone,
I'd like to initiate a discussion on KIP-1129: Update ConfigException
constructors at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/n4pEF.
This KIP adds a constructor to ConfigException to accept a Throwable as a
second argument following the Java convention for Throwables and deprecates t
