>
> The root cause is that we don't have an API abstraction for the
> pulsar-broker module
+1 I think that's reasonable to think about the pulsar-broker module as
internal and to not take care of retrocompatibility.
If we have the desire to expose the broker service classes in a
compatible way,
Hi all,
We already have working procedures to change the public API, like PIP
, mail-discussion and the PR templates.
>From what I understand, the problem is more like how to provide a
clear and proper definition of "Broker Public API".
I believe it's the reason why PIP-136 updated the method sign
> I'm afraid it's very hard to avoid these API changes. Take theprotocol
> handler as example, it could make use of nearly all modulesvia the
> `PulsarService` object. The cost to keep the compatibilitymight be high so
> that much legacy code could be left. For example,each time a new argument i
I'm afraid it's very hard to avoid these API changes. Take the
protocol handler as example, it could make use of nearly all modules
via the `PulsarService` object. The cost to keep the compatibility
might be high so that much legacy code could be left. For example,
each time a new argument is added
> It would help me understand if you would explain how apis were changed in
> this PR
Sorry, I explained above. it's a small break, maybe it just breaks some unit
test mock, but it can be used as an example.
> We should be sure to track and then highlight API changes in release
> documents.
> A
> Could you please share more details about how the change breaks the broker
> public API?
For example, this PR[1] change the public API from non-argument to one
argument. It will cause other libraries also change for it.
I'm not sure that ensuring the compatibility of method signatures is
wor
Hi-
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 6, 2022, at 8:40 PM, mattisonc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi, All
>
> Recently, I realised we don't have any rules for breaking pulsar broker
> public API. [1]
While I agree with you that we need to be transparent about changing APIs you
mention a specific PR.
Hi mattison
Could you please share more details about how the change breaks the broker
public API?
It will help us to understand the compatibility issue.
Thanks,
Penghui
> On Dec 7, 2022, at 12:39, mattisonc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi, All
>
> Recently, I realised we don't have any rules for
