+1 for including in the next RC.
> On 4. Dec 2017, at 13:10, Gyula Fóra <gyula.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think what we need to ask here is whether the custom workaround solutions
> people are using over the place are any more robust than our own
> implementation.
>
> I would be in favor of including it if the PR is merged in time for the next
> RC.
>
> Gyula
>
> Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@apache.org <mailto:tzuli...@apache.org>> ezt
> írta (időpont: 2017. dec. 4., H, 12:36):
> Hi,
>
> I’ve created a PR to publicly expose the feature:
> https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/5117
> <https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/5117>.
> Whether or not we should include this in the next release candidate for 1.4
> is still up for discussion.
>
> Best,
> Gordon
> On 4 December 2017 at 3:02:29 PM, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai (tzuli...@apache.org
> <mailto:tzuli...@apache.org>) wrote:
>
>> Hi Soheil,
>>
>> That feature is actually already internally available.
>> The only issue is that the functionality is not yet exposed via any public
>> APIs on the Kafka consumer.
>> Please see this JIRA here: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8190
>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-8190>.
>>
>> I’m not sure of exposing the pattern-based subscription API now for 1.4,
>> though.
>> Although it is only a matter of exposing already implemented features, AFAIK
>> pattern-based subscription is not thoroughly tested in the release
>> candidates.
>> cc @Aljoscha, what do you think about this?
>>
>> Best,
>> Gordon
>>
>> On 3 December 2017 at 5:29:32 AM, Soheil Pourbafrani (soheil.i...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:soheil.i...@gmail.com>) wrote:
>>
>>> I use Flink Kafka connector 10 to subscribe topics and get data. Now I want
>>> to specify topics not using String, but regular expression. I want to do
>>> that just because it can recognize future topics added to the Kafka and get
>>> their data.
>>>
>>> Spark Kafka connector has a method named SubscribePattern and we can use it
>>> to subscribe to topics using regular expressions.
>>>
>>> Is there something equivalent or some other way to do that?
