Hey, I just sent out a google hangout invite to all pmc, committers and everyone I found working on a KIP. If I missed anyone in the invite please let me know and can update it, np.
We should do this every Tuesday @ 2pm Eastern Time. Maybe we can get INFRA help to make a google account so we can manage better? To discuss https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals in progress and related JIRA that are interdependent and common work. ~ Joe Stein On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Let's stay on Google hangouts that will also record and make the sessions > available on youtube. > > -Jay > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Jeff Holoman <jholo...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > Jay / Joe > > > > We're happy to send out a Webex for this purpose. We could record the > > sessions if there is interest and publish them out. > > > > Thanks > > > > Jeff > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Let's try to get the technical hang-ups sorted out, though. I really > > think > > > there is some benefit to live discussion vs writing. I am hopeful that > if > > > we post instructions and give ourselves a few attempts we can get it > > > working. > > > > > > Tuesday at that time would work for me...any objections? > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Joe Stein <joe.st...@stealth.ly> > wrote: > > > > > > > Weekly would be great maybe like every Tuesday ~ 1pm ET / 10am PT > ???? > > > > > > > > I don't mind google hangout but there is always some issue or > whatever > > so > > > > we know the apache irc channel works. We can start there and see how > it > > > > goes? We can pull transcripts too and associate to tickets if need be > > > makes > > > > it helpful for things. > > > > > > > > ~ Joestein > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We'd talked about doing a Google Hangout to chat about this. What > > about > > > > > generalizing that a little further...I actually think it would be > > good > > > > for > > > > > everyone spending a reasonable chunk of their week on Kafka stuff > to > > > > maybe > > > > > sync up once a week. I think we could use time to talk through > design > > > > > stuff, make sure we are on top of code reviews, talk through any > > tricky > > > > > issues, etc. > > > > > > > > > > We can make it publicly available so that any one can follow along > > who > > > > > likes. > > > > > > > > > > Any interest in doing this? If so I'll try to set it up starting > next > > > > week. > > > > > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:57 AM, Andrii Biletskyi < > > > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I've updated KIP page, fixed / aligned document structure. Also I > > > added > > > > > > some > > > > > > very initial proposal for AdminClient so we have something to > start > > > > from > > > > > > while > > > > > > discussing the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-4+-+Command+line+and+centralized+administrative+operations > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Andrii Biletskyi > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Andrii Biletskyi < > > > > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re error messages: you are right, in most cases client will > have > > > > enough > > > > > > > context to show descriptive error message. My concern is that > we > > > will > > > > > > have > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > add lots of new error codes for each possible error. Of course, > > we > > > > > could > > > > > > > reuse > > > > > > > some of existing like UknownTopicOrPartitionCode, but we will > > also > > > > need > > > > > > to > > > > > > > add smth like: TopicAlreadyExistsCode, TopicConfigInvalid (both > > for > > > > > topic > > > > > > > name and config, and probably user would like to know what > > exactly > > > > > > > is wrong in his config), InvalidReplicaAssignment, > InternalError > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > zookeeper failure) etc. > > > > > > > And this is only for TopicCommand, we will also need to add > > similar > > > > > stuff > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > ReassignPartitions, PreferredReplica. So we'll end up with a > > large > > > > list > > > > > > of > > > > > > > error codes, used only in Admin protocol. > > > > > > > Having said that, I agree my proposal is not consistent with > > other > > > > > cases. > > > > > > > Maybe we can find better solution or something in-between. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re Hangout chat: I think it is a great idea. This way we can > move > > > on > > > > > > > faster. > > > > > > > Let's agree somehow on date/time so people can join. Will work > > for > > > me > > > > > > this > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > next week almost anytime if agreed in advance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Andrii > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Jay Kreps < > jay.kr...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hey Andrii, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Generally we can do good error handling without needing custom > > > > > > server-side > > > > > > >> messages. I.e. generally the client has the context to know > that > > > if > > > > it > > > > > > got > > > > > > >> an error that the topic doesn't exist to say "Topic X doesn't > > > exist" > > > > > > >> rather > > > > > > >> than "error code 14" (or whatever). Maybe there are specific > > cases > > > > > where > > > > > > >> this is hard? If we want to add server-side error messages we > > > really > > > > > do > > > > > > >> need to do this in a consistent way across the protocol. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I still have a bunch of open questions here from my previous > > > list. I > > > > > > will > > > > > > >> be out for the next few days for Strata though. Maybe we could > > do > > > a > > > > > > Google > > > > > > >> Hangout chat on any open issues some time towards the end of > > next > > > > week > > > > > > for > > > > > > >> anyone interested in this ticket? I have a feeling that might > > > > progress > > > > > > >> things a little faster than email--I think we could talk > through > > > > those > > > > > > >> issues I brought up fairly quickly... > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -Jay > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Andrii Biletskyi < > > > > > > >> andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Hi all, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I'm trying to address some of the issues which were > mentioned > > > > > earlier > > > > > > >> about > > > > > > >> > Admin RQ/RP format. One of those was about batching > > operations. > > > > What > > > > > > if > > > > > > >> we > > > > > > >> > follow TopicCommand approach and let people specify > topic-name > > > by > > > > > > >> regexp - > > > > > > >> > would that cover most of the use cases? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Secondly, is what information should we generally provide in > > > Admin > > > > > > >> > responses. > > > > > > >> > I realize that Admin commands don't imply they will be used > > only > > > > in > > > > > > CLI > > > > > > >> > but, > > > > > > >> > it seems to me, CLI is a very important client of this > > feature. > > > In > > > > > > this > > > > > > >> > case, > > > > > > >> > seems logical, we would like to provide users with rich > > > experience > > > > > in > > > > > > >> terms > > > > > > >> > of > > > > > > >> > getting results / errors of the executed commands. Usually > we > > > > supply > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > >> > responses only errorCode, which looks very limiting, in case > > of > > > > CLI > > > > > we > > > > > > >> may > > > > > > >> > want to print human readable error description. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > So, taking into account previous item about batching, what > do > > > you > > > > > > think > > > > > > >> > about > > > > > > >> > having smth like: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > ('create' doesn't support regexp) > > > > > > >> > CreateTopicRequest => TopicName Partitions Replicas > > > > > ReplicaAssignment > > > > > > >> > [Config] > > > > > > >> > CreateTopicResponse => ErrorCode ErrorDescription > > > > > > >> > ErrorCode => int16 > > > > > > >> > ErrorDescription => string (empty if successful) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > AlterTopicRequest -> TopicNameRegexp Partitions > > > ReplicaAssignment > > > > > > >> > [AddedConfig] [DeletedConfig] > > > > > > >> > AlterTopicResponse -> [TopicName ErrorCode ErrorDescription] > > > > > > >> > CommandErrorCode CommandErrorDescription > > > > > > >> > CommandErrorCode => int16 > > > > > > >> > CommandErrorDescription => string (nonempty in case of > fatal > > > > > error, > > > > > > >> e.g. > > > > > > >> > we couldn't get topics by regexp) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > DescribeTopicRequest -> TopicNameRegexp > > > > > > >> > DescribeTopicResponse -> [TopicName TopicDescription > ErrorCode > > > > > > >> > ErrorDescription] CommandErrorCode CommandErrorDescription > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Also, any thoughts about our discussion regarding re-routing > > > > > facility? > > > > > > >> In > > > > > > >> > my > > > > > > >> > understanding, it is like between augmenting > > > TopicMetadataRequest > > > > > > >> > (to include at least controllerId) and implementing new > > generic > > > > > > >> re-routing > > > > > > >> > facility so sending messages to controller will be handled > by > > > it. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > Andrii Biletskyi > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Andrii Biletskyi < > > > > > > >> > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > @Guozhang: > > > > > > >> > > Thanks for your comments, I've answered some of those. The > > > main > > > > > > thing > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > >> > > having merged request for create-alter-delete-describe - I > > > have > > > > > some > > > > > > >> > > concerns about this approach. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > @*Jay*: > > > > > > >> > > I see that introduced ClusterMetadaRequest is also one of > > the > > > > > > >> concerns. > > > > > > >> > We > > > > > > >> > > can solve it if we implement re-routing facility. But I > > agree > > > > with > > > > > > >> > > Guozhang - it will make clients' internals a little bit > > easier > > > > but > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > >> > > seems to be a complex logic to implement and support then. > > > > > > Especially > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > >> > > Fetch and Produce (even if we add re-routing later for > these > > > > > > >> requests). > > > > > > >> > > Also people will tend to avoid this re-routing facility > and > > > hold > > > > > > local > > > > > > >> > > cluster cache to ensure their high-priority requests > (which > > > some > > > > > of > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > admin requests are) not sent to some busy broker where > they > > > wait > > > > > to > > > > > > be > > > > > > >> > > routed to the correct one. > > > > > > >> > > As pointed out by Jun here ( > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1772?focusedCommentId=14234530&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-14234530 > > > > > > >> > ) > > > > > > >> > > to solve the issue we might introduce a message type to > get > > > > > cluster > > > > > > >> > state. > > > > > > >> > > But I agree we can just update TopicMetadataResponse to > > > include > > > > > > >> > > controllerId (and probably smth else). > > > > > > >> > > What are you thougths? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > Andrii > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Guozhang Wang < > > > > > wangg...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> I think for the topics commands we can actually merge > > > > > > >> > >> create/alter/delete/describe as one request type since > > their > > > > > > formats > > > > > > >> are > > > > > > >> > >> very much similar, and keep list-topics and others like > > > > > > >> > >> partition-reassignment / preferred-leader-election as > > > separate > > > > > > >> request > > > > > > >> > >> types, I also left some other comments on the RB ( > > > > > > >> > >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/29301/). > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Jay Kreps < > > > > jay.kr...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > Yeah I totally agree that we don't want to just have > one > > > "do > > > > > > admin > > > > > > >> > >> stuff" > > > > > > >> > >> > command that has the union of all parameters. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > What I am saying is that command line tools are one > > client > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > >> > administrative apis, but these will be used in a number > > of > > > > > > >> scenarios > > > > > > >> > so > > > > > > >> > >> > they should make logical sense even in the absence of > the > > > > > command > > > > > > >> line > > > > > > >> > >> > tool. Hence comments like trying to clarify the > > > relationship > > > > > > >> between > > > > > > >> > >> > ClusterMetadata and TopicMetadata...these kinds of > things > > > > > really > > > > > > >> need > > > > > > >> > >> to be > > > > > > >> > >> > thought through. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > Hope that makes sense. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > -Jay > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Andrii Biletskyi < > > > > > > >> > >> > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Jay, > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks for answering. You understood correctly, most > of > > > my > > > > > > >> comments > > > > > > >> > >> were > > > > > > >> > >> > > related to your point 1) - about "well thought-out" > > apis. > > > > > Also, > > > > > > >> yes, > > > > > > >> > >> as I > > > > > > >> > >> > > understood we would like to introduce a single > unified > > > CLI > > > > > tool > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > >> > >> > > centralized server-side request handling for lots of > > > > existing > > > > > > >> ones > > > > > > >> > >> (incl. > > > > > > >> > >> > > TopicCommand, CommitOffsetChecker, > ReassignPartitions, > > > smth > > > > > > else > > > > > > >> if > > > > > > >> > >> added > > > > > > >> > >> > > in future). In our previous discussion ( > > > > > > >> > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1694) > > people > > > > > said > > > > > > >> > they'd > > > > > > >> > >> > > rather > > > > > > >> > >> > > have a separate message for each command, so, yes, > this > > > > way I > > > > > > >> came > > > > > > >> > to > > > > > > >> > >> 1-1 > > > > > > >> > >> > > mapping between commands in the tool and protocol > > > > additions. > > > > > > But > > > > > > >> I > > > > > > >> > >> might > > > > > > >> > >> > be > > > > > > >> > >> > > wrong. > > > > > > >> > >> > > At the end I just try to start discussion how at > least > > > > > > generally > > > > > > >> > this > > > > > > >> > >> > > protocol should look like. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > >> > > Andrii > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Jay Kreps < > > > > > > jay.kr...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Hey Andrii, > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > To answer your earlier question we just really > can't > > be > > > > > > adding > > > > > > >> any > > > > > > >> > >> more > > > > > > >> > >> > > > scala protocol objects. These things are super hard > > to > > > > > > maintain > > > > > > >> > >> because > > > > > > >> > >> > > > they hand code the byte parsing and don't have good > > > > > > versioning > > > > > > >> > >> support. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Since we are already planning on converting we > > > definitely > > > > > > don't > > > > > > >> > >> want to > > > > > > >> > >> > > add > > > > > > >> > >> > > > a ton more of these--they are total tech debt. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > What does it mean that the changes are isolated > from > > > the > > > > > > >> current > > > > > > >> > >> code > > > > > > >> > >> > > base? > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > I actually didn't understand the remaining > comments, > > > > which > > > > > of > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > >> > points > > > > > > >> > >> > > > are you responding to? > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Maybe one sticking point here is that it seems like > > you > > > > > want > > > > > > to > > > > > > >> > make > > > > > > >> > >> > some > > > > > > >> > >> > > > kind of tool, and you have made a 1-1 mapping > between > > > > > > commands > > > > > > >> you > > > > > > >> > >> > > imagine > > > > > > >> > >> > > > in the tool and protocol additions. I want to make > > sure > > > > we > > > > > > >> don't > > > > > > >> > do > > > > > > >> > >> > that. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > The protocol needs to be really really well thought > > out > > > > > > against > > > > > > >> > many > > > > > > >> > >> > use > > > > > > >> > >> > > > cases so it should make perfect logical sense in > the > > > > > absence > > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > >> knowing > > > > > > >> > >> > > the > > > > > > >> > >> > > > command line tool, right? > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > -Jay > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Andrii Biletskyi > < > > > > > > >> > >> > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Hey Jay, > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > I would like to continue this discussion as it > seem > > > > there > > > > > > is > > > > > > >> no > > > > > > >> > >> > > progress > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > here. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > First of all, could you please explain what did > you > > > > mean > > > > > in > > > > > > >> 2? > > > > > > >> > How > > > > > > >> > >> > > > exactly > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > are we going to migrate to the new java protocol > > > > > > definitions. > > > > > > >> > And > > > > > > >> > >> why > > > > > > >> > >> > > > it's > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > a blocker for centralized CLI? > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > I agree with you, this feature includes lots of > > > stuff, > > > > > but > > > > > > >> > >> thankfully > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > almost all changes are isolated from the current > > code > > > > > base, > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > so the main thing, I think, we need to agree is > > RQ/RP > > > > > > format. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > So how can we start discussion about the concrete > > > > > messages > > > > > > >> > format? > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Can we take ( > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-4+-+Command+line+and+centralized+administrative+operations#KIP-4-Commandlineandcentralizedadministrativeoperations-ProposedRQ/RPFormat > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > ) > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > as starting point? > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > We had some doubts earlier whether it worth > > > introducing > > > > > one > > > > > > >> > >> generic > > > > > > >> > >> > > Admin > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Request for all commands ( > > > > > > >> > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1694 > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > ) > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > but then everybody agreed it would be better to > > have > > > > > > separate > > > > > > >> > >> message > > > > > > >> > >> > > for > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > each admin command. The Request part is really > > > dictated > > > > > > from > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > >> > > command > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > (e.g. TopicCommand) arguments itself, so the > > proposed > > > > > > version > > > > > > >> > >> should > > > > > > >> > >> > be > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > fine (let's put aside for now remarks about > > Optional > > > > > type, > > > > > > >> > >> batching, > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > configs normalization - I agree with all of > them). > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > So the second part is Response. I see there are > two > > > > cases > > > > > > >> here. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > a) "Mutate" requests - Create/Alter/... ; b) > "Get" > > > > > > requests - > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > List/Describe... > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > a) should only hold request result (regardless > what > > > we > > > > > > decide > > > > > > >> > >> about > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > blocking/non-blocking commands execution). > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Usually we provide error code in response but > since > > > we > > > > > will > > > > > > >> use > > > > > > >> > >> this > > > > > > >> > >> > in > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > interactive shell we need some human readable > error > > > > > > >> description > > > > > > >> > - > > > > > > >> > >> so > > > > > > >> > >> > I > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > added errorDesription field where you can at > least > > > > leave > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > exception.getMessage. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > b) in addition to previous item message should > hold > > > > > command > > > > > > >> > >> specific > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > response data. We can discuss in detail each of > > them > > > > but > > > > > > >> let's > > > > > > >> > for > > > > > > >> > >> > now > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > agree about the overall pattern. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Andrii Biletskyi > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Jay Kreps < > > > > > > >> jay.kr...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Hey Joe, > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > This is great. A few comments on KIP-4 > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > 1. This is much needed functionality, but there > > > are a > > > > > lot > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > >> > >> the so > > > > > > >> > >> > > > let's > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > really think these protocols through. We really > > > want > > > > to > > > > > > >> end up > > > > > > >> > >> > with a > > > > > > >> > >> > > > set > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > of well thought-out, orthoganol apis. For this > > > > reason I > > > > > > >> think > > > > > > >> > >> it is > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > really > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > important to think through the end state even > if > > > that > > > > > > >> includes > > > > > > >> > >> APIs > > > > > > >> > >> > > we > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > won't implement in the first phase. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > 2. Let's please please please wait until we > have > > > > > switched > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > >> > server > > > > > > >> > >> > > > over > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > to the new java protocol definitions. If we add > > > > upteen > > > > > > >> more ad > > > > > > >> > >> hoc > > > > > > >> > >> > > > scala > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > objects that is just generating more work for > the > > > > > > >> conversion > > > > > > >> > we > > > > > > >> > >> > know > > > > > > >> > >> > > we > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > have to do. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > 3. This proposal introduces a new type of > > optional > > > > > > >> parameter. > > > > > > >> > >> This > > > > > > >> > >> > is > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > inconsistent with everything else in the > protocol > > > > where > > > > > > we > > > > > > >> use > > > > > > >> > >> -1 > > > > > > >> > >> > or > > > > > > >> > >> > > > some > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > other marker value. You could argue either way > > but > > > > > let's > > > > > > >> stick > > > > > > >> > >> with > > > > > > >> > >> > > > that > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > for consistency. For clients that implemented > the > > > > > > protocol > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > >> > a > > > > > > >> > >> > > better > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > way > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > than our scala code these basic primitives are > > hard > > > > to > > > > > > >> change. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > 4. ClusterMetadata: This seems to duplicate > > > > > > >> > TopicMetadataRequest > > > > > > >> > >> > > which > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > has > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > brokers, topics, and partitions. I think we > > should > > > > > rename > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > >> > >> > > request > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > ClusterMetadataRequest (or just > MetadataRequest) > > > and > > > > > > >> include > > > > > > >> > >> the id > > > > > > >> > >> > > of > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > the > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > controller. Or are there other things we could > > add > > > > > here? > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > 5. We have a tendency to try to make a lot of > > > > requests > > > > > > that > > > > > > >> > can > > > > > > >> > >> > only > > > > > > >> > >> > > go > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > to > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > particular nodes. This adds a lot of burden for > > > > client > > > > > > >> > >> > > implementations > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > (it > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > sounds easy but each discovery can fail in many > > > parts > > > > > so > > > > > > it > > > > > > >> > >> ends up > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > being a > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > full state machine to do right). I think we > > should > > > > > > consider > > > > > > >> > >> making > > > > > > >> > >> > > > admin > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > commands and ideally as many of the other apis > as > > > > > > possible > > > > > > >> > >> > available > > > > > > >> > >> > > on > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > all > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > brokers and just redirect to the controller on > > the > > > > > broker > > > > > > >> > side. > > > > > > >> > >> > > Perhaps > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > there would be a general way to encapsulate > this > > > > > > re-routing > > > > > > >> > >> > behavior. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > 6. We should probably normalize the key value > > pairs > > > > > used > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > >> > >> > configs > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > rather > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > than embedding a new formatting. So two strings > > > > rather > > > > > > than > > > > > > >> > one > > > > > > >> > >> > with > > > > > > >> > >> > > an > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > internal equals sign. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > 7. Is the postcondition of these APIs that the > > > > command > > > > > > has > > > > > > >> > >> begun or > > > > > > >> > >> > > > that > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > the command has been completed? It is a lot > more > > > > usable > > > > > > if > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > >> > > command > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > has > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > been completed so you know that if you create a > > > topic > > > > > and > > > > > > >> then > > > > > > >> > >> > > publish > > > > > > >> > >> > > > to > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > it you won't get an exception about there being > > no > > > > such > > > > > > >> topic. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > 8. Describe topic and list topics duplicate a > lot > > > of > > > > > > stuff > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > >> > >> the > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > metadata > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > request. Is there a reason to give back topics > > > marked > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > >> > deletion? I > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > feel > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > like if we just make the post-condition of the > > > delete > > > > > > >> command > > > > > > >> > be > > > > > > >> > >> > that > > > > > > >> > >> > > > the > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > topic is deleted that will get rid of the need > > for > > > > this > > > > > > >> right? > > > > > > >> > >> And > > > > > > >> > >> > it > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > will > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > be much more intuitive. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > 9. Should we consider batching these requests? > We > > > > have > > > > > > >> > generally > > > > > > >> > >> > > tried > > > > > > >> > >> > > > to > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > allow multiple operations to be batched. My > > > suspicion > > > > > is > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > >> > >> > without > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > this > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > we will get a lot of code that does something > > like > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > for(topic: adminClient.listTopics()) > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > adminClient.describeTopic(topic) > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > this code will work great when you test on 5 > > topics > > > > but > > > > > > >> not do > > > > > > >> > >> as > > > > > > >> > >> > > well > > > > > > >> > >> > > > if > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > you have 50k. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > 10. I think we should also discuss how we want > to > > > > > expose > > > > > > a > > > > > > >> > >> > > programmatic > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > JVM > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > client api for these operations. Currently > people > > > > rely > > > > > on > > > > > > >> > >> > AdminUtils > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > which > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > is totally sketchy. I think we probably need > > > another > > > > > > client > > > > > > >> > >> under > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > clients/ > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > that exposes administrative functionality. We > > will > > > > need > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > >> > >> just > > > > > > >> > >> > to > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > properly test the new apis, I suspect. We > should > > > > figure > > > > > > out > > > > > > >> > that > > > > > > >> > >> > API. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > 11. The other information that would be really > > > useful > > > > > to > > > > > > >> get > > > > > > >> > >> would > > > > > > >> > >> > be > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > information about partitions--how much data is > in > > > the > > > > > > >> > partition, > > > > > > >> > >> > what > > > > > > >> > >> > > > are > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > the segment offsets, what is the log-end offset > > > (i.e. > > > > > > last > > > > > > >> > >> offset), > > > > > > >> > >> > > > what > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > is > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > the compaction point, etc. I think that done > > right > > > > this > > > > > > >> would > > > > > > >> > be > > > > > > >> > >> > the > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > successor to the very awkward OffsetRequest we > > have > > > > > > today. > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Joe Stein < > > > > > > >> > >> joe.st...@stealth.ly> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Hi, created a KIP > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-4+-+Command+line+and+centralized+administrative+operations > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > JIRA > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1694 > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > /******************************************* > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Joe Stein > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Founder, Principal Consultant > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Big Data Open Source Security LLC > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > http://www.stealth.ly > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Twitter: @allthingshadoop < > > > > > > >> > >> > http://www.twitter.com/allthingshadoop > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > ********************************************/ > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> -- > > > > > > >> > >> -- Guozhang > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jeff Holoman > > Systems Engineer > > >
