Thanks to David Morávek for pointing out possible improvement to KafkaIO for dropping support for 0.9 since it avoids having a second consumer just to fetch latest offsets for backlog.
Ideally we should be dropping 0.9 support for next major release, in fact better to drop versions before 0.10.1 at the same time. This would further reduce reflection based calls for supporting multiple versions. If the users still on 0.9 could stay on current stable release of Beam, dropping would not affect them. Otherwise, it would be good to hear from them about how long we need to keep support for old versions. I don't think it is good idea to have multiple forks of KafkaIO in the same repo. If we do go that route, we should fork the entire kafka directory and rename the main class KafkaIO_Unmaintained :). IMHO, so far, additional complexity for supporting these versions is not that bad. Most of it is isolated to ConsumerSpEL.java & ProducerSpEL.java. My first preference is dropping support for deprecated versions (and a deprecate a few more versions, may be till the version that added transactions around 0.11.x I think). I haven't looked into what's new in Kafka 2.x. Are there any features that KafkaIO should take advantage of? I have not noticed our existing code breaking. We should certainly certainly support latest releases of Kafka. Raghu. On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 10:27 AM Mingmin Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > > We're still using Kafka 0.10 a lot, similar as 0.9 IMO. To expand multiple > versions in KafkaIO is quite complex now, and it confuses users which is > supported / which is not. I would prefer to support Kafka 2.0+ only in the > latest version. For old versions, there're some options: > 1). document Kafka-Beam support versions, like what we do in FlinkRunner; > 2). maintain separated KafkaIOs for old versions; > > 1) would be easy to maintain, and I assume there should be no issue to use > Beam-Core 3.0 together with KafkaIO 2.0. > > Any thoughts? > > Mingmin > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 9:56 AM Reuven Lax <[email protected]> wrote: > >> KafkaIO is marked as Experimental, and the comment already warns that 0.9 >> support might be removed. I think that if users still rely on Kafka 0.9 we >> should leave a fork (renamed) of the IO in the tree for 0.9, but we can >> definitely remove 0.9 support from the main IO if we want, especially if >> it's complicated changes to that IO. If we do though, we should fail with a >> clear error message telling users to use the Kafka 0.9 IO. >> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 9:34 AM Alexey Romanenko <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> > How are multiple versions of Kafka supported? Are they all in one >>> client, or is there a case for forks like ElasticSearchIO? >>> >>> They are supported in one client but we have additional “ConsumerSpEL” >>> adapter which unifies interface difference among different Kafka client >>> versions (mostly to support old ones 0.9-0.10.0). >>> >>> On the other hand, we warn user in Javadoc of KafkaIO (which is >>> Unstable, btw) by the following: >>> *“KafkaIO relies on kafka-clients for all its interactions with the >>> Kafka cluster.**kafka-clients versions 0.10.1 and newer are supported >>> at runtime. The older versions 0.9.x **- 0.10.0.0 are also supported, >>> but are deprecated and likely be removed in near future.”* >>> >>> Despite the fact that, personally, I’d prefer to have only one unified >>> client interface but, since people still use Beam with old Kafka instances, >>> we, likely, should stick with it till Beam 3.0. >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> On 2 Apr 2019, at 02:27, Austin Bennett <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> FWIW -- >>> >>> On my (desired, not explicitly job-function) roadmap is to tap into a >>> bunch of our corporate Kafka queues to ingest that data to places I can >>> use. Those are 'stuck' 0.9, with no upgrade in sight (am told the upgrade >>> path isn't trivial, is very critical flows, and they are scared for it to >>> break, so it just sits behind firewalls, etc). But, I wouldn't begin that >>> for probably at least another quarter. >>> >>> I don't contribute to nor understand the burden of maintaining the >>> support for the older version, so can't reasonably lobby for that continued >>> pain. >>> >>> Anecdotally, this could be a place many enterprises are at (though I >>> also wonder whether many of the people that would be 'stuck' on such >>> versions would also have Beam on their current radar). >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 2:29 PM Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> This could be a backward-incompatible change, though that notion has >>>> many interpretations. What matters is user pain. Technically if we don't >>>> break the core SDK, users should be able to use Java SDK >=2.11.0 with >>>> KafkaIO 2.11.0 forever. >>>> >>>> How are multiple versions of Kafka supported? Are they all in one >>>> client, or is there a case for forks like ElasticSearchIO? >>>> >>>> Kenn >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 10:37 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 to remove 0.9 support. >>>>> >>>>> I think it's more interesting to test and verify Kafka 2.2.0 than 0.9 >>>>> ;) >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>> On 01/04/2019 19:36, David Morávek wrote: >>>>> > Hello, >>>>> > >>>>> > is there still a reason to keep Kafka 0.9 support? This unfortunately >>>>> > adds lot of complexity to KafkaIO implementation. >>>>> > >>>>> > Kafka 0.9 was released on Nov 2015. >>>>> > >>>>> > My first shot on removing Kafka 0.9 support would remove second >>>>> > consumer, which is used for fetching offsets. >>>>> > >>>>> > WDYT? Is this support worth keeping? >>>>> > >>>>> > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/8186 >>>>> > >>>>> > D. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>>>> >>>> >>> > > -- > ---- > Mingmin >
