Versions Compared

Old Version 1

changes.mady.by.user Mickael Maison

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Mickael Maison

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Table of Contents

Status

Current state: DraftDiscarded

Discussion thread: TBD Thread

JIRA: KAFKA-14741

Please keep the discussion on the mailing list rather than commenting on the wiki (wiki discussions get unwieldy fast).

...

This KIP proposes adding a new configuration setting to sink and source connectors:

Name: description
Type: String
Documentation: An optional free form description for this connector.
Required: No
Group: Common
Default: null
Display: Description for the connector
Importance: Low

Proposed Changes

Since this new field is part of the connector configuration, every time it is updated via the REST API it may trigger a rebalance of the connector.

Proposed Changes

Add the new field to ConnectorConfig which holds the common connector configurationsDescribe the new thing you want to do in appropriate detail. This may be fairly extensive and have large subsections of its own. Or it may be a few sentences. Use judgement based on the scope of the change.

Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan

  • What impact (if any) will there be on existing users?
  • If we are changing behavior how will we phase out the older behavior?
  • If we need special migration tools, describe them here.
  • When will we remove the existing behavior?

Test Plan

Describe in few sentences how the KIP will be tested. We are mostly interested in system tests (since unit-tests are specific to implementation details). How will we know that the implementation works as expected? How will we know nothing broke?

Rejected Alternatives

This is a new optional field. Existing connectors are not impacted and since the field defaults to null. Unknown configurations are ignored by Connect so if a connector is created with a description and then the Connect version is downgraded , the field will be ignored.

Test Plan

This will be tested with unit/integration tests

Rejected Alternatives

NoneIf there are alternative ways of accomplishing the same thing, what were they? The purpose of this section is to motivate why the design is the way it is and not some other way.