Sorry for not beeing 100% up to date.
Back then we had the discussion that when an operation puts a >Sink<
into the topology, a >Produced<
parameter is added. This produced parameter could have internal or
external. If internal I think the name would still make
a great suffix for the topic name
Is this plan still around? Otherwise having the name as suffix is
probably always good it can help the user quicker to identify hot topics
that need more
partitions if he has many of these internal repartitions
Best Jan
On 06.11.2017 20:13, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
I absolute agree with what you say. It's not a requirement to specify a
topic name -- and this was the idea -- if user does specify a name, we
treat as is -- if users does not specify a name, Streams create an
internal topic.
The goal of the Jira is to allow a simplified way to control
repartitioning (atm, user needs to manually create a topic and use via
through()).
Thus, the idea is to make the topic name parameter of through optional.
It's of course just an idea. Happy do have a other API design. The goal
was, to avoid to many new overloads.
Could you clarify exactly what you mean by keeping the current distinction?
Current distinction is: user topics are created manually and user
specifies the name -- internal topics are created by Kafka Streams and
an name is generated automatically.
-> through("user-topic")
-> through(TopicConfig.withNumberOfPartitions(5)) // Streams creates an
internal topic
-Matthias
On 11/6/17 6:56 PM, Thomas Becker wrote:
Could you clarify exactly what you mean by keeping the current distinction?
Actually, re-reading the KIP and JIRA, it's not clear that being able to
specify a custom name is actually a requirement. If the goal is to control
repartitioning and tune parallelism, maybe we can just sidestep this issue
altogether by removing the ability to set a different name.
On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 16:51 +0100, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
That's a good point. In current design, we strictly distinguish both.
For example, the reset tools deletes internal topics (starting with
prefix `<application.id>-` and ending with either `-repartition` or
`-changelog`.
Thus, from my point of view, it would make sense to keep the current
distinction.
-Matthias
On 11/6/17 4:45 PM, Thomas Becker wrote:
I think this sounds good as well. It's worth clarifying whether topics that are named by
the user but created by streams are considered "internal" topics also.
On Sun, 2017-11-05 at 23:02 +0100, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
My idea was, to relax the requirement for through() that a topic must be
created manually before startup.
Thus, if no through() call is made, a (internal) topic is created the
same way we do it currently.
If one uses `through(String topicName)` we keep the current behavior and
require users to create the topic manually.
The reasoning is as follows: if a user creates a topic manually, a user
can just use it for repartitioning. As the topic is already there, there
is no need to specify any topic configs.
We add a new `through()` overload (details TBD) that allows to specify
topic configs and Streams create the topic with those configs.
Reasoning: user don't want to manage topic manually, thus, it's still an
internal topic and Streams create the topic name automatically as for
all other internal topics. However, users gets some more control about
topic parameters like number of partitions (we should discuss what other
configs would be useful).
Does this make sense?
-Matthias
On 11/5/17 1:21 AM, Jan Filipiak wrote:
Hi.
Im not 100 % up to date what version 1.0 DSL looks like ATM.
I just would argue that repartitioning should be an own API call like
through or something.
One can use through or to already to get this. I would argue one should
look there instead of overloads
Best Jan
On 04.11.2017 16:01, Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
Dear community,
I would like to initiate discussion on KIP-221 [1] based on issue [2].
Please feel free to comment.
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-221%3A+Repartition+Topic+Hints+in+Streams
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6037
Cheers,
Jeyhun
________________________________
This email and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged material
for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or
distribution of this email (or any attachments) by others is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and
permanently delete this email and any attachments. No employee or agent of TiVo
Inc. is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of TiVo Inc. by
email. Binding agreements with TiVo Inc. may only be made by a signed written
agreement.
________________________________
This email and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged material
for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or
distribution of this email (or any attachments) by others is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and
permanently delete this email and any attachments. No employee or agent of TiVo
Inc. is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of TiVo Inc. by
email. Binding agreements with TiVo Inc. may only be made by a signed written
agreement.
