-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A few minor points, then let's get this merged!
# Getting started | ||
|
||
Requirements: | ||
- a Kafka instance, version 2.8.0 or older, which you can configure |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Where does the 2.8.0 requirement come from? Or is this really a statement about what you've tested?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Kafka 3.1.0 introduces topic id's to FETCH requests (KIP 516). This version of topic encryption does not support topic id's, rather it performs string-matching to identify topic partitions in protocol messages.
Actually Kafka 3.0 will also work with this release, but 2.8.0 is what is tested.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have created an issue to address topic IDs: #17
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
encmod/pom.xml
Outdated
<dependency> | ||
<groupId>org.apache.logging.log4j</groupId> | ||
<artifactId>log4j-api</artifactId> | ||
</dependency> | ||
<dependency> | ||
<groupId>org.apache.logging.log4j</groupId> | ||
<artifactId>log4j-core</artifactId> | ||
</dependency> | ||
<dependency> | ||
<groupId>org.apache.logging.log4j</groupId> | ||
<artifactId>log4j-slf4j-impl</artifactId> | ||
</dependency> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess these can be test
scoped in this module, and then let the vertx-proxy
module pull them in as runtime dependencies.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done
vertx-proxy/pom.xml
Outdated
<dependency> | ||
<groupId>io.strimzi</groupId> | ||
<artifactId>encmod</artifactId> | ||
<version>0.0.1-SNAPSHOT</version> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This can be ${project.version}
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Indeed. I just committed it. Thanks.
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Giblin <[email protected]>
This PR consolidates changes made during the discussion in PR #9 which this PR supersedes