You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@kafka.apache.org by Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> on 2017/10/11 08:21:14 UTC
[VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to replace the
existing policy interfaces with a single new policy interface that also
extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in the AdminClient.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-201%3A+Rationalising+Policy+interfaces
Thanks for your time.
Tom
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for driving this!
+1 (non binding)
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to replace the
> existing policy interfaces with a single new policy interface that also
> extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in the AdminClient.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-201%3A+Rationalising+Policy+interfaces
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Tom
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com>.
This vote has been silent for a few weeks now but I think this would
be a very useful feature.
Did it just slip through busy inboxes or are there reasons why
committers have not voted ?
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a PR for this (https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4281) in case
> anyone wants to look at the implementation in detail, but right now this
> KIP still lacks any committer votes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> On 22 November 2017 at 17:32, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I just wanted to highlight to committers that although this KIP has three
>> non-binding votes, it currently lacks any binding votes: Any feedback would
>> be appreciated.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On 7 November 2017 at 20:42, Stephane Maarek <stephane@simplemachines.com.
>> au> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay makes sense thanks! As you said maybe in the future (or now), it's
>>> worth starting a server java dependency jar that's not called "client".
>>> Probably a debate for another day (
>>>
>>> Tom, crossing fingers to see more votes on this! Good stuff
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/11/17, 9:51 pm, "Ismael Juma" <ismaelj@gmail.com on behalf of
>>> ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> The idea is that you only depend on a Java jar. The core jar includes
>>> the
>>> Scala version in the name and you should not care about that when
>>> implementing a Java interface.
>>>
>>> Ismael
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Stephane Maarek <
>>> stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Thanks !
>>> >
>>> > How about a java folder package in the core then ? It's not a
>>> separate jar
>>> > and it's still java?
>>> >
>>> > Nonetheless I agree these are details. I just got really confused
>>> when
>>> > trying to write my policy and would hope that confusion is not
>>> shared by
>>> > others because it's a "client " class although should only reside
>>> within a
>>> > broker
>>> >
>>> > On 7 Nov. 2017 9:04 pm, "Ismael Juma" <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The location of the policies is fine. Note that the package _does
>>> not_
>>> > include clients in the name. If we ever have enough server side
>>> only code
>>> > to merit a separate JAR, we can do that and it's mostly compatible
>>> (users
>>> > would only have to update their build dependency). Generally, all
>>> public
>>> > APIs going forward will be in Java.
>>> >
>>> > Ismael
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Stephane Maarek <
>>> > stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi Tom,
>>> > >
>>> > > Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine
>>> (the
>>> > > compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy
>>> to be
>>> > > implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer)
>>> > > It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code.
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks!
>>> > > Stephane
>>> > >
>>> > > Kind regards,
>>> > > Stephane
>>> > >
>>> > > [image: Simple Machines]
>>> > >
>>> > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
>>> > >
>>> > > +61 416 575 980
>>> > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
>>> > > simplemachines.com.au
>>> > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>>> > >
>>> > > On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Hi Stephane,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The vote on this KIP is on-going.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and
>>> Mickael
>>> > > would
>>> > > > have to to not disagree with them.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now.
>>> I don't
>>> > > know
>>> > > > the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that
>>> it's not
>>> > > > ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the
>>> > > situation
>>> > > > with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side
>>> > extensions
>>> > > > points which users can provide their own implementations of. I
>>> don't
>>> > know
>>> > > > whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala
>>> and
>>> > java
>>> > > > code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if
>>> these
>>> > > > server-side policies were moved.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Cheers,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Tom
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek <
>>> > > stephane@simplemachines.com.
>>> > > > au
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Hi Tom,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to
>>> implement a
>>> > > > > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy
>>> > > > > (and Alter, etc...)
>>> > > > > These policies would have some most basic parameter to check
>>> for
>>> > > > > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that
>>> end users
>>> > > can
>>> > > > > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the
>>> > interface
>>> > > so
>>> > > > > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress
>>> so I can
>>> > > > > propose my KIP.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Finally, have the packages been discussed?
>>> > > > > I find it extremely awkward to have the current
>>> CreateTopicPolicy
>>> > part
>>> > > of
>>> > > > > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next
>>> classes
>>> > > you're
>>> > > > > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or
>>> > > > server/policy.
>>> > > > > Unless I'm missing something?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Thanks for driving this
>>> > > > > Stephane
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Kind regards,
>>> > > > > Stephane
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > [image: Simple Machines]
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > +61 416 575 980
>>> > > > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
>>> > > > > simplemachines.com.au
>>> > > > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <
>>> t.j.bentley@gmail.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and
>>> > although
>>> > > > > there
>>> > > > > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any
>>> feedback from
>>> > > > > > committers would be appreciated.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Thanks,
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Tom
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <
>>> ECOMAR@uk.ibm.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the
>>> protocol) it
>>> > now
>>> > > > > > > supersedes KIP-170
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > +1 non-binding
>>> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Edoardo Comar
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > IBM Message Hub
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
>>> > > > > > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
>>> > > > > > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy
>>> interfaces
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to
>>> > replace
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy
>>> interface
>>> > that
>>> > > > also
>>> > > > > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in
>>> the
>>> > > > > AdminClient.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.
>>> com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
>>> > > > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
>>> > > > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
>>> > > > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
>>> > > > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=
>>> > > tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
>>> > > > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp
>>> > > > D9517uJkCgrCk&e=
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Thanks for your time.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Tom
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
>>> > > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and
>>> Wales with
>>> > > > > number
>>> > > > > > > 741598.
>>> > > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
>>> > Hampshire
>>> > > > PO6
>>> > > > > > 3AU
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>.
I have a PR for this (https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4281) in case
anyone wants to look at the implementation in detail, but right now this
KIP still lacks any committer votes.
Cheers,
Tom
On 22 November 2017 at 17:32, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just wanted to highlight to committers that although this KIP has three
> non-binding votes, it currently lacks any binding votes: Any feedback would
> be appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> On 7 November 2017 at 20:42, Stephane Maarek <stephane@simplemachines.com.
> au> wrote:
>
>> Okay makes sense thanks! As you said maybe in the future (or now), it's
>> worth starting a server java dependency jar that's not called "client".
>> Probably a debate for another day (
>>
>> Tom, crossing fingers to see more votes on this! Good stuff
>>
>>
>> On 7/11/17, 9:51 pm, "Ismael Juma" <ismaelj@gmail.com on behalf of
>> ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> The idea is that you only depend on a Java jar. The core jar includes
>> the
>> Scala version in the name and you should not care about that when
>> implementing a Java interface.
>>
>> Ismael
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Stephane Maarek <
>> stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks !
>> >
>> > How about a java folder package in the core then ? It's not a
>> separate jar
>> > and it's still java?
>> >
>> > Nonetheless I agree these are details. I just got really confused
>> when
>> > trying to write my policy and would hope that confusion is not
>> shared by
>> > others because it's a "client " class although should only reside
>> within a
>> > broker
>> >
>> > On 7 Nov. 2017 9:04 pm, "Ismael Juma" <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > The location of the policies is fine. Note that the package _does
>> not_
>> > include clients in the name. If we ever have enough server side
>> only code
>> > to merit a separate JAR, we can do that and it's mostly compatible
>> (users
>> > would only have to update their build dependency). Generally, all
>> public
>> > APIs going forward will be in Java.
>> >
>> > Ismael
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Stephane Maarek <
>> > stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Tom,
>> > >
>> > > Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine
>> (the
>> > > compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy
>> to be
>> > > implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer)
>> > > It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > > Stephane
>> > >
>> > > Kind regards,
>> > > Stephane
>> > >
>> > > [image: Simple Machines]
>> > >
>> > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
>> > >
>> > > +61 416 575 980
>> > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
>> > > simplemachines.com.au
>> > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>> > >
>> > > On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Stephane,
>> > > >
>> > > > The vote on this KIP is on-going.
>> > > >
>> > > > I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and
>> Mickael
>> > > would
>> > > > have to to not disagree with them.
>> > > >
>> > > > The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now.
>> I don't
>> > > know
>> > > > the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that
>> it's not
>> > > > ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the
>> > > situation
>> > > > with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side
>> > extensions
>> > > > points which users can provide their own implementations of. I
>> don't
>> > know
>> > > > whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala
>> and
>> > java
>> > > > code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if
>> these
>> > > > server-side policies were moved.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > >
>> > > > Tom
>> > > >
>> > > > On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek <
>> > > stephane@simplemachines.com.
>> > > > au
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi Tom,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to
>> implement a
>> > > > > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy
>> > > > > (and Alter, etc...)
>> > > > > These policies would have some most basic parameter to check
>> for
>> > > > > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that
>> end users
>> > > can
>> > > > > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the
>> > interface
>> > > so
>> > > > > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress
>> so I can
>> > > > > propose my KIP.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Finally, have the packages been discussed?
>> > > > > I find it extremely awkward to have the current
>> CreateTopicPolicy
>> > part
>> > > of
>> > > > > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next
>> classes
>> > > you're
>> > > > > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or
>> > > > server/policy.
>> > > > > Unless I'm missing something?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks for driving this
>> > > > > Stephane
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Kind regards,
>> > > > > Stephane
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [image: Simple Machines]
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
>> > > > >
>> > > > > +61 416 575 980
>> > > > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
>> > > > > simplemachines.com.au
>> > > > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <
>> t.j.bentley@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and
>> > although
>> > > > > there
>> > > > > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any
>> feedback from
>> > > > > > committers would be appreciated.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Tom
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <
>> ECOMAR@uk.ibm.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the
>> protocol) it
>> > now
>> > > > > > > supersedes KIP-170
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > +1 non-binding
>> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Edoardo Comar
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > IBM Message Hub
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
>> > > > > > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
>> > > > > > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy
>> interfaces
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to
>> > replace
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy
>> interface
>> > that
>> > > > also
>> > > > > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in
>> the
>> > > > > AdminClient.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.
>> com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
>> > > > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
>> > > > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
>> > > > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
>> > > > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=
>> > > tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
>> > > > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp
>> > > > D9517uJkCgrCk&e=
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks for your time.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Tom
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
>> > > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and
>> Wales with
>> > > > > number
>> > > > > > > 741598.
>> > > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
>> > Hampshire
>> > > > PO6
>> > > > > > 3AU
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>.
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to highlight to committers that although this KIP has three
non-binding votes, it currently lacks any binding votes: Any feedback would
be appreciated.
Cheers,
Tom
On 7 November 2017 at 20:42, Stephane Maarek <stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> wrote:
> Okay makes sense thanks! As you said maybe in the future (or now), it's
> worth starting a server java dependency jar that's not called "client".
> Probably a debate for another day (
>
> Tom, crossing fingers to see more votes on this! Good stuff
>
>
> On 7/11/17, 9:51 pm, "Ismael Juma" <ismaelj@gmail.com on behalf of
> ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> The idea is that you only depend on a Java jar. The core jar includes
> the
> Scala version in the name and you should not care about that when
> implementing a Java interface.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Stephane Maarek <
> stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Thanks !
> >
> > How about a java folder package in the core then ? It's not a
> separate jar
> > and it's still java?
> >
> > Nonetheless I agree these are details. I just got really confused
> when
> > trying to write my policy and would hope that confusion is not
> shared by
> > others because it's a "client " class although should only reside
> within a
> > broker
> >
> > On 7 Nov. 2017 9:04 pm, "Ismael Juma" <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > The location of the policies is fine. Note that the package _does
> not_
> > include clients in the name. If we ever have enough server side only
> code
> > to merit a separate JAR, we can do that and it's mostly compatible
> (users
> > would only have to update their build dependency). Generally, all
> public
> > APIs going forward will be in Java.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Stephane Maarek <
> > stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine (the
> > > compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy
> to be
> > > implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer)
> > > It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Stephane
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Stephane
> > >
> > > [image: Simple Machines]
> > >
> > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
> > >
> > > +61 416 575 980
> > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> > > simplemachines.com.au
> > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
> > >
> > > On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Stephane,
> > > >
> > > > The vote on this KIP is on-going.
> > > >
> > > > I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and
> Mickael
> > > would
> > > > have to to not disagree with them.
> > > >
> > > > The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now. I
> don't
> > > know
> > > > the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that
> it's not
> > > > ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the
> > > situation
> > > > with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side
> > extensions
> > > > points which users can provide their own implementations of. I
> don't
> > know
> > > > whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala
> and
> > java
> > > > code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if
> these
> > > > server-side policies were moved.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek <
> > > stephane@simplemachines.com.
> > > > au
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to
> implement a
> > > > > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy
> > > > > (and Alter, etc...)
> > > > > These policies would have some most basic parameter to check
> for
> > > > > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that
> end users
> > > can
> > > > > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the
> > interface
> > > so
> > > > > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress so
> I can
> > > > > propose my KIP.
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally, have the packages been discussed?
> > > > > I find it extremely awkward to have the current
> CreateTopicPolicy
> > part
> > > of
> > > > > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next
> classes
> > > you're
> > > > > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or
> > > > server/policy.
> > > > > Unless I'm missing something?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for driving this
> > > > > Stephane
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > Stephane
> > > > >
> > > > > [image: Simple Machines]
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
> > > > >
> > > > > +61 416 575 980
> > > > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> > > > > simplemachines.com.au
> > > > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
> > > > >
> > > > > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <
> t.j.bentley@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and
> > although
> > > > > there
> > > > > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any
> feedback from
> > > > > > committers would be appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <
> ECOMAR@uk.ibm.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the
> protocol) it
> > now
> > > > > > > supersedes KIP-170
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 non-binding
> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Edoardo Comar
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IBM Message Hub
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > > > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
> > > > > > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy
> interfaces
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to
> > replace
> > > > the
> > > > > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy
> interface
> > that
> > > > also
> > > > > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in
> the
> > > > > AdminClient.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki
> .
> > > > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
> > > > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
> > > > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
> > > > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=
> > > tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
> > > > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp
> > > > D9517uJkCgrCk&e=
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for your time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and
> Wales with
> > > > > number
> > > > > > > 741598.
> > > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
> > Hampshire
> > > > PO6
> > > > > > 3AU
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Stephane Maarek <st...@simplemachines.com.au>.
Okay makes sense thanks! As you said maybe in the future (or now), it's worth starting a server java dependency jar that's not called "client".
Probably a debate for another day (
Tom, crossing fingers to see more votes on this! Good stuff
On 7/11/17, 9:51 pm, "Ismael Juma" <ismaelj@gmail.com on behalf of ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
The idea is that you only depend on a Java jar. The core jar includes the
Scala version in the name and you should not care about that when
implementing a Java interface.
Ismael
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Stephane Maarek <
stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
> Thanks !
>
> How about a java folder package in the core then ? It's not a separate jar
> and it's still java?
>
> Nonetheless I agree these are details. I just got really confused when
> trying to write my policy and would hope that confusion is not shared by
> others because it's a "client " class although should only reside within a
> broker
>
> On 7 Nov. 2017 9:04 pm, "Ismael Juma" <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> The location of the policies is fine. Note that the package _does not_
> include clients in the name. If we ever have enough server side only code
> to merit a separate JAR, we can do that and it's mostly compatible (users
> would only have to update their build dependency). Generally, all public
> APIs going forward will be in Java.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Stephane Maarek <
> stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine (the
> > compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy to be
> > implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer)
> > It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Stephane
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Stephane
> >
> > [image: Simple Machines]
> >
> > Stephane Maarek | Developer
> >
> > +61 416 575 980
> > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> > simplemachines.com.au
> > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
> >
> > On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Stephane,
> > >
> > > The vote on this KIP is on-going.
> > >
> > > I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and Mickael
> > would
> > > have to to not disagree with them.
> > >
> > > The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now. I don't
> > know
> > > the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that it's not
> > > ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the
> > situation
> > > with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side
> extensions
> > > points which users can provide their own implementations of. I don't
> know
> > > whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala and
> java
> > > code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if these
> > > server-side policies were moved.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek <
> > stephane@simplemachines.com.
> > > au
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to implement a
> > > > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy
> > > > (and Alter, etc...)
> > > > These policies would have some most basic parameter to check for
> > > > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that end users
> > can
> > > > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the
> interface
> > so
> > > > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP
> > > >
> > > > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress so I can
> > > > propose my KIP.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, have the packages been discussed?
> > > > I find it extremely awkward to have the current CreateTopicPolicy
> part
> > of
> > > > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next classes
> > you're
> > > > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or
> > > server/policy.
> > > > Unless I'm missing something?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for driving this
> > > > Stephane
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Stephane
> > > >
> > > > [image: Simple Machines]
> > > >
> > > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
> > > >
> > > > +61 416 575 980
> > > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> > > > simplemachines.com.au
> > > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
> > > >
> > > > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and
> although
> > > > there
> > > > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any feedback from
> > > > > committers would be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <EC...@uk.ibm.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the protocol) it
> now
> > > > > > supersedes KIP-170
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 non-binding
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Edoardo Comar
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IBM Message Hub
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
> > > > > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to
> replace
> > > the
> > > > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy interface
> that
> > > also
> > > > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in the
> > > > AdminClient.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
> > > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
> > > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
> > > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
> > > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=
> > tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
> > > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp
> > > D9517uJkCgrCk&e=
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> > > > number
> > > > > > 741598.
> > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
> Hampshire
> > > PO6
> > > > > 3AU
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
The idea is that you only depend on a Java jar. The core jar includes the
Scala version in the name and you should not care about that when
implementing a Java interface.
Ismael
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Stephane Maarek <
stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
> Thanks !
>
> How about a java folder package in the core then ? It's not a separate jar
> and it's still java?
>
> Nonetheless I agree these are details. I just got really confused when
> trying to write my policy and would hope that confusion is not shared by
> others because it's a "client " class although should only reside within a
> broker
>
> On 7 Nov. 2017 9:04 pm, "Ismael Juma" <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> The location of the policies is fine. Note that the package _does not_
> include clients in the name. If we ever have enough server side only code
> to merit a separate JAR, we can do that and it's mostly compatible (users
> would only have to update their build dependency). Generally, all public
> APIs going forward will be in Java.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Stephane Maarek <
> stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine (the
> > compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy to be
> > implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer)
> > It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Stephane
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Stephane
> >
> > [image: Simple Machines]
> >
> > Stephane Maarek | Developer
> >
> > +61 416 575 980
> > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> > simplemachines.com.au
> > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
> >
> > On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Stephane,
> > >
> > > The vote on this KIP is on-going.
> > >
> > > I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and Mickael
> > would
> > > have to to not disagree with them.
> > >
> > > The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now. I don't
> > know
> > > the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that it's not
> > > ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the
> > situation
> > > with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side
> extensions
> > > points which users can provide their own implementations of. I don't
> know
> > > whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala and
> java
> > > code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if these
> > > server-side policies were moved.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek <
> > stephane@simplemachines.com.
> > > au
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to implement a
> > > > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy
> > > > (and Alter, etc...)
> > > > These policies would have some most basic parameter to check for
> > > > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that end users
> > can
> > > > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the
> interface
> > so
> > > > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP
> > > >
> > > > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress so I can
> > > > propose my KIP.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, have the packages been discussed?
> > > > I find it extremely awkward to have the current CreateTopicPolicy
> part
> > of
> > > > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next classes
> > you're
> > > > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or
> > > server/policy.
> > > > Unless I'm missing something?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for driving this
> > > > Stephane
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Stephane
> > > >
> > > > [image: Simple Machines]
> > > >
> > > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
> > > >
> > > > +61 416 575 980
> > > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> > > > simplemachines.com.au
> > > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
> > > >
> > > > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and
> although
> > > > there
> > > > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any feedback from
> > > > > committers would be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <EC...@uk.ibm.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the protocol) it
> now
> > > > > > supersedes KIP-170
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 non-binding
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Edoardo Comar
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IBM Message Hub
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
> > > > > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to
> replace
> > > the
> > > > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy interface
> that
> > > also
> > > > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in the
> > > > AdminClient.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
> > > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
> > > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
> > > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
> > > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=
> > tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
> > > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp
> > > D9517uJkCgrCk&e=
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> > > > number
> > > > > > 741598.
> > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
> Hampshire
> > > PO6
> > > > > 3AU
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Stephane Maarek <st...@simplemachines.com.au>.
Thanks !
How about a java folder package in the core then ? It's not a separate jar
and it's still java?
Nonetheless I agree these are details. I just got really confused when
trying to write my policy and would hope that confusion is not shared by
others because it's a "client " class although should only reside within a
broker
On 7 Nov. 2017 9:04 pm, "Ismael Juma" <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
The location of the policies is fine. Note that the package _does not_
include clients in the name. If we ever have enough server side only code
to merit a separate JAR, we can do that and it's mostly compatible (users
would only have to update their build dependency). Generally, all public
APIs going forward will be in Java.
Ismael
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Stephane Maarek <
stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine (the
> compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy to be
> implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer)
> It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code.
>
> Thanks!
> Stephane
>
> Kind regards,
> Stephane
>
> [image: Simple Machines]
>
> Stephane Maarek | Developer
>
> +61 416 575 980
> stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> simplemachines.com.au
> Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>
> On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Stephane,
> >
> > The vote on this KIP is on-going.
> >
> > I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and Mickael
> would
> > have to to not disagree with them.
> >
> > The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now. I don't
> know
> > the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that it's not
> > ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the
> situation
> > with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side
extensions
> > points which users can provide their own implementations of. I don't
know
> > whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala and java
> > code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if these
> > server-side policies were moved.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek <
> stephane@simplemachines.com.
> > au
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to implement a
> > > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy
> > > (and Alter, etc...)
> > > These policies would have some most basic parameter to check for
> > > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that end users
> can
> > > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the interface
> so
> > > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP
> > >
> > > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress so I can
> > > propose my KIP.
> > >
> > > Finally, have the packages been discussed?
> > > I find it extremely awkward to have the current CreateTopicPolicy part
> of
> > > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next classes
> you're
> > > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or
> > server/policy.
> > > Unless I'm missing something?
> > >
> > > Thanks for driving this
> > > Stephane
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Stephane
> > >
> > > [image: Simple Machines]
> > >
> > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
> > >
> > > +61 416 575 980
> > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> > > simplemachines.com.au
> > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
> > >
> > > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and
although
> > > there
> > > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any feedback from
> > > > committers would be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <EC...@uk.ibm.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the protocol) it
now
> > > > > supersedes KIP-170
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 non-binding
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Edoardo Comar
> > > > >
> > > > > IBM Message Hub
> > > > >
> > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
> > > > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to replace
> > the
> > > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy interface that
> > also
> > > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in the
> > > AdminClient.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
> > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
> > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
> > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
> > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=
> tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
> > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp
> > D9517uJkCgrCk&e=
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> > > number
> > > > > 741598.
> > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
> > PO6
> > > > 3AU
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
The location of the policies is fine. Note that the package _does not_
include clients in the name. If we ever have enough server side only code
to merit a separate JAR, we can do that and it's mostly compatible (users
would only have to update their build dependency). Generally, all public
APIs going forward will be in Java.
Ismael
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Stephane Maarek <
stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine (the
> compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy to be
> implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer)
> It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code.
>
> Thanks!
> Stephane
>
> Kind regards,
> Stephane
>
> [image: Simple Machines]
>
> Stephane Maarek | Developer
>
> +61 416 575 980
> stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> simplemachines.com.au
> Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>
> On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Stephane,
> >
> > The vote on this KIP is on-going.
> >
> > I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and Mickael
> would
> > have to to not disagree with them.
> >
> > The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now. I don't
> know
> > the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that it's not
> > ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the
> situation
> > with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side extensions
> > points which users can provide their own implementations of. I don't know
> > whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala and java
> > code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if these
> > server-side policies were moved.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek <
> stephane@simplemachines.com.
> > au
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to implement a
> > > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy
> > > (and Alter, etc...)
> > > These policies would have some most basic parameter to check for
> > > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that end users
> can
> > > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the interface
> so
> > > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP
> > >
> > > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress so I can
> > > propose my KIP.
> > >
> > > Finally, have the packages been discussed?
> > > I find it extremely awkward to have the current CreateTopicPolicy part
> of
> > > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next classes
> you're
> > > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or
> > server/policy.
> > > Unless I'm missing something?
> > >
> > > Thanks for driving this
> > > Stephane
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Stephane
> > >
> > > [image: Simple Machines]
> > >
> > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
> > >
> > > +61 416 575 980
> > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> > > simplemachines.com.au
> > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
> > >
> > > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and although
> > > there
> > > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any feedback from
> > > > committers would be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <EC...@uk.ibm.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the protocol) it now
> > > > > supersedes KIP-170
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 non-binding
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Edoardo Comar
> > > > >
> > > > > IBM Message Hub
> > > > >
> > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
> > > > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to replace
> > the
> > > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy interface that
> > also
> > > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in the
> > > AdminClient.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
> > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
> > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
> > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
> > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=
> tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
> > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp
> > D9517uJkCgrCk&e=
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> > > number
> > > > > 741598.
> > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
> > PO6
> > > > 3AU
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Stephane Maarek <st...@simplemachines.com.au>.
Hi Tom,
Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine (the
compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy to be
implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer)
It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code.
Thanks!
Stephane
Kind regards,
Stephane
[image: Simple Machines]
Stephane Maarek | Developer
+61 416 575 980
stephane@simplemachines.com.au
simplemachines.com.au
Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephane,
>
> The vote on this KIP is on-going.
>
> I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and Mickael would
> have to to not disagree with them.
>
> The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now. I don't know
> the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that it's not
> ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the situation
> with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side extensions
> points which users can provide their own implementations of. I don't know
> whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala and java
> code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if these
> server-side policies were moved.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek <stephane@simplemachines.com.
> au
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to implement a
> > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy
> > (and Alter, etc...)
> > These policies would have some most basic parameter to check for
> > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that end users can
> > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the interface so
> > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP
> >
> > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress so I can
> > propose my KIP.
> >
> > Finally, have the packages been discussed?
> > I find it extremely awkward to have the current CreateTopicPolicy part of
> > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next classes you're
> > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or
> server/policy.
> > Unless I'm missing something?
> >
> > Thanks for driving this
> > Stephane
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Stephane
> >
> > [image: Simple Machines]
> >
> > Stephane Maarek | Developer
> >
> > +61 416 575 980
> > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> > simplemachines.com.au
> > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
> >
> > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and although
> > there
> > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any feedback from
> > > committers would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <EC...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the protocol) it now
> > > > supersedes KIP-170
> > > >
> > > > +1 non-binding
> > > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Edoardo Comar
> > > >
> > > > IBM Message Hub
> > > >
> > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
> > > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to replace
> the
> > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy interface that
> also
> > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in the
> > AdminClient.
> > > >
> > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
> > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
> > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
> > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
> > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
> > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp
> D9517uJkCgrCk&e=
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your time.
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> > number
> > > > 741598.
> > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
> PO6
> > > 3AU
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>.
Hi Stephane,
The vote on this KIP is on-going.
I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and Mickael would
have to to not disagree with them.
The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now. I don't know
the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that it's not
ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the situation
with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side extensions
points which users can provide their own implementations of. I don't know
whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala and java
code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if these
server-side policies were moved.
Cheers,
Tom
On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek <stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to implement a
> SimpleCreateTopicPolicy
> (and Alter, etc...)
> These policies would have some most basic parameter to check for
> replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that end users can
> leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the interface so
> I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP
>
> I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress so I can
> propose my KIP.
>
> Finally, have the packages been discussed?
> I find it extremely awkward to have the current CreateTopicPolicy part of
> the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next classes you're
> implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or server/policy.
> Unless I'm missing something?
>
> Thanks for driving this
> Stephane
>
> Kind regards,
> Stephane
>
> [image: Simple Machines]
>
> Stephane Maarek | Developer
>
> +61 416 575 980
> stephane@simplemachines.com.au
> simplemachines.com.au
> Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>
> On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and although
> there
> > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any feedback from
> > committers would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <EC...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the protocol) it now
> > > supersedes KIP-170
> > >
> > > +1 non-binding
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Edoardo Comar
> > >
> > > IBM Message Hub
> > >
> > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
> > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to replace the
> > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy interface that also
> > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in the
> AdminClient.
> > >
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
> > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
> > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
> > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
> > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
> > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZpD9517uJkCgrCk&e=
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for your time.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> number
> > > 741598.
> > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> > 3AU
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Stephane Maarek <st...@simplemachines.com.au>.
Hi Tom,
What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to implement a
SimpleCreateTopicPolicy
(and Alter, etc...)
These policies would have some most basic parameter to check for
replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that end users can
leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the interface so
I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP
I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress so I can
propose my KIP.
Finally, have the packages been discussed?
I find it extremely awkward to have the current CreateTopicPolicy part of
the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next classes you're
implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or server/policy.
Unless I'm missing something?
Thanks for driving this
Stephane
Kind regards,
Stephane
[image: Simple Machines]
Stephane Maarek | Developer
+61 416 575 980
stephane@simplemachines.com.au
simplemachines.com.au
Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and although there
> are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any feedback from
> committers would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom
>
> On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <EC...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the protocol) it now
> > supersedes KIP-170
> >
> > +1 non-binding
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Edoardo Comar
> >
> > IBM Message Hub
> >
> > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
> > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
> >
> >
> >
> > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to replace the
> > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy interface that also
> > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in the AdminClient.
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
> > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
> > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
> iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
> > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
> > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZpD9517uJkCgrCk&e=
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your time.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > Unless stated otherwise above:
> > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> > 741598.
> > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> 3AU
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>.
It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and although there
are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any feedback from
committers would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Tom
On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <EC...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the protocol) it now
> supersedes KIP-170
>
> +1 non-binding
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Edoardo Comar
>
> IBM Message Hub
>
> IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
>
>
>
> From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
> Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
>
>
>
> I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to replace the
> existing policy interfaces with a single new policy interface that also
> extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in the AdminClient.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
> apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
> 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
> EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
> J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZpD9517uJkCgrCk&e=
>
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Edoardo Comar <EC...@uk.ibm.com>.
Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the protocol) it now
supersedes KIP-170
+1 non-binding
--------------------------------------------------
Edoardo Comar
IBM Message Hub
IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to replace the
existing policy interfaces with a single new policy interface that also
extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in the AdminClient.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZpD9517uJkCgrCk&e=
Thanks for your time.
Tom
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU