Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


Currently (in BookKeeper 4.5) we have several overloaded versions of the methods createLedger/createLedegerAdv/asyncCreateLeader/asyncCreateLeaderAdv. This methods are present because from version to version we added new configuration options for the Ledger.

In order to support new features in the future we need to have a more extensible API.

Proposed Change

So we will introduce a new set of APIs to construct Ledgers, in the future this pattern will be extended to other operations, like deleteLedger/closeLedger/addEntry.

This is how the client code will look like:

In order to achieve this goal we are going to introduce CreateBuilder and CreateBuilderAdv interfaces

And we will make CrateLedgerOp implement such interfaces.

We are going to introduce a new BookKeeper interface

We are going to introduce WriteHandler and WriteHandlerAdv interfaces which contains only the API related to writing to a Ledger, following the LedgerHandler/LedgerHandlerAdv semantics.

In a similar way we are going to introduce a ReadHandler which contains only the API related to reading to a Ledger and a OpenBuilder.

Please note that WriteHandler and WriteAdvHandler will extend ReadHandler as writer need to be able to read its own writes.

A common Handler interface will be a base interface for ReadHandler and it will contain basic operations like 'close'


Migration Plan and Compatibility

No issue about migration and compatibility.

Legacy methods will be retained. No @Deprecated annotation will be added.

Further removal of existing APIs will be evaluated in the future, maybe while starting a new major release, like 5.0.0

Further works

We can create similar API style for addEntry, readEntries and other operations which need an extensible API.

We would leverage CompletableFuture for operations like close, delete, addEntry, readEntries....

Rejected Alternatives

This is an example of an alternative API which has been rejected, as it will not be really extensible in the future.

The rejected idea is about using the builder pattern for creating LedgerConfiguration structures and not directly ledgers



  • No labels