Thanks David for reading the KIP and sharing your thoughts. I still believe the Group Membership protocol has enormous potential to be used outside of Core Kafka. Even if AbstractCordinator is, as you suggested, not the right abstraction to build upon, there's still merit in the idea of having the group membership protocol mechanisms surfaced into APIs that can be used by applications (like Connect and Streams do today) that interact with Kafka one way or another.
I'll think about this a bit longer. Thanks again for your feedback. Regards, From: dja...@confluent.io.INVALID At: 02/01/22 05:01:41 UTC-5:00To: Hector Geraldino (BLOOMBERG/ 919 3RD A ) , dev@kafka.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-795: Add public APIs for AbstractCoordinator Hi Hector, Thanks for the KIP. I finally had a bit of time to read it. I understand that a few services have been leveraging Kafka's Group Membership Protocol to do leader election and/or service discovery. However, I am not entirely convinced that Kafka should be used in that way because specialized systems already exist to solve those use cases. That's just my personal opinion. Assuming that we would want to support such cases in the future, I think that AbstractCoordinator is not the right abstraction for this. AbstractCoordinator is more and internal implementation detail and not really something meant to become a public API. I think that it would be much better to come up with a new set of APIs for these use cases instead of extracting an interface out of AbstractCoordinator. Best, David On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 11:15 PM Hector Geraldino (BLOOMBERG/ 919 3RD A) <hgerald...@bloomberg.net> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > Thanks for taking time reviewing the KIP. > > I think it's reasonable to ask if Kafka's Group Coordination protocol should be used for use cases other than the distributed event log. This was actually briefly addressed by Gwen Shapira during her presentation at the strangeloop conference in '18 (a link to the video is included in the KIP), in which she explain in greater details the protocol internals. > > We should also keep in mind that this protocol is already being used for other use cases outside of core Kafka: Confluent Schema Registry uses it to determine leadership between members of a cluster, Kafka Connect uses it for task assignments, same with Kafka Stream for partition and task distributions, and so on. So having a public, stable API not just for new use cases (like ours) but existing ones is IMHO a good thing to have. I'll amend the KIP and add a bit more details to the motivation and alternatives sections, so the usefulness of this KIP is better understood. > > Now, for the first point of your technical observations (regarding protocolTypes()), I don't think it matters in this context, as the protocol name and subtype are only relevant in the context of a consumer group and group rebalance. It really doesn't matter if two different libraries decide to name their protocols the same. > > For item #2, I was under the impression that, because these classes all implement the org.apache.kafka.common.protocol.[Message, ApiMessage] interface, they are implicitly part of the Kafka protocol and the top-level API. Isn't that really the case? > > And finally, for #3, the goal I had in mind when creating this KPI was a small one: to provide an interface that users can rely on when extending the AbstactCoordinator. So my thought was that, while the AbstractCoordinator itself uses some internal APIs (like ConsumerNetworkClient, ConsumerMetadata and so on) those can remain internal. But it probably makes sense to at least explore the possibility of moving the whole AbstractCoordinator class to be part of the public API. I'll do that exercise, see what it entails, and update the KIP with my findings. > > > Thanks again! > Hector > > > From: dev@kafka.apache.org At: 11/10/21 06:43:59 UTC-5:00To: Hector Geraldino (BLOOMBERG/ 919 3RD A ) , dev@kafka.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-795: Add public APIs for AbstractCoordinator > > Hi Hector, > > Thanks for the KIP. > > At a high level, I think the question to be answered by the community is > "Should Kafka really be providing this kind of cluster management API?". > While Kafka clients need this to provide their functionality it's a > different thing to expose that as a public API of the project, which is > otherwise about providing a distributed event log/data streaming > platform/<insert your favourite definition of Kafka here>. Having a public > API brings a significant commitment for API compatibility, which could > impair the ability of the project to change the API in order to make > improvements to the Kafka clients. The current AbstractCoordinator not > being a supported API means we don't currently have to reason about > compatibility here. So I think it would help the motivation section of the > KIP to describe in a bit more detail the use case(s) you have for > implementing your own coordinators. For example, are these applications > using Kafka otherwise, or just to leverage this API? And what alternatives > to implementing your own coordinators did you consider, and why did you > reject them? > > From a technical point of view, there are a number of issues I think would > need addressing in order to do something like this: > > 1. There probably ought to be a way to ensure that protocolTypes() don't > collide, or at least reduce the chances of a collision. While probably > unlikely in practice the consequences of different protocols having the > same name could be pretty confusing to debug. > 2. JoinGroupRequestData and JoinGroupResponseData are not public classes > (none of the *RequestData or *ResponseData classes are, intentionally), so > there would have to be an abstraction for them. > 3. It's all well and good having an interface that anyone can implement, > but there is no supported Kafka API which takes an instance as a parameter > (i.e. where do you plug your implementation in without having to use a > bunch of other non-public Kafka APIs?) I assume in your current usage > you're having to make use of other non-supported client APIs to make use of > your coordinator. The KIP isn't really a complete piece of work without a > way to use a custom implementation, in my opinion. It would be confusing if > it looked like we were encouraging people to use those other non-supported > APIs by making this coordinator public. > > Kind regards, > > Tom > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 2:01 PM Hector Geraldino (BLOOMBERG/ 919 3RD A) < > hgerald...@bloomberg.net> wrote: > > > Hi Kafka devs, > > > > I would like to start the discussion of KIP-795: Add public APIs for > > AbstractCoordinator > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-795%3A+Add+public+APIs+for > +AbstractCoordinator > > > > Looking forward for some feedback from the community. > > > > Regards, > > Hector > >
