Conversation
|
couple more refs in the excalidraw overview illustrations of filter chains edit: sorted |
We do not have an Audit Filter yet Signed-off-by: Robert Young <robertyoungnz@gmail.com>
|
We don't have an audit filter/plugin but it is exactly the sort of use case we want the proxy to support. Do you think we should only show what we currently have? |
| <div class="col-lg-6"> | ||
| <h1 class="fw-bold text-body-emphasis lh-1 mb-3" id="krx-hero-title">Kroxylicious, the snappy open source proxy for Apache Kafka<sup>®</sup></h1> | ||
| <p class="lead">Topic encryption, policy-enforcement, multi-tenancy, audit and much more.</p> | ||
| <p class="lead">Topic encryption, policy-enforcement, multi-tenancy and much more.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit.
| <p class="lead">Topic encryption, policy-enforcement, multi-tenancy and much more.</p> | |
| <p class="lead">Record encryption, policy-enforcement, multi-tenancy and much more.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On second thoughts, a decision maker might not necessarily know that Kafka refers to its application messages as records. "Encryption of topic records", "Topic record encryption"?
I think removing the reference is the right thing. This phrase could potentially disappoint a potential user. |
|
Yeah that was my feeling, we talk about it in the same breath as other Filters we do offer, so it would be annoying to find this is the only one with no references in the documentation. So I get what you mean that there's an audience who might be interested in the possibilities as a Filter Author, but currently it's confusing to have it mentioned in our highest level overviews and especially the hero banner on the landing page. |
Yeah I see the concern.
I guess I've got a lot of the audit proposal in my head so the timing seems odd but I'm fine with merging |
3 participants
We do not have an Audit Filter yet