+1 Thanks Colin. This is really going to help with compatibility. -Jason
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:34 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019, at 13:01, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > Hi Colin, > > > > Just a couple questions. > > > > 1. I think we discussed that we would do a lazy version bump of all > > protocols in order to get flexible version support. Can you add that to > the > > KIP? > > Good point. Added. > > > 2. The doc mentions a bump to the request and response header formats to > > version 1. Currently there is no formal header version. It wasn't clear > to > > me if you were suggesting that we create a header version as part of the > > schema or if this was just an informal way to refer to the header in > > "flexible version" requests. Can you clarify? > > I think we should have a formal header version. However, we can deduce > which header version we should use based on the apiKey and apiVersion, so > no changes will be needed to what is sent over the wire. > > Having a new header version will let us add new fields to request and > response headers. In particular, having a flexible header version will let > us add tagged fields, which will be useful for adding things like a message > traceID. > As another example, ThrottleTimeMs would have made more sense in the > response header than as an addition to every message. > > cheers, > Colin > > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:14 AM David Arthur <mum...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +1 binding. > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, Colin! > > > > > > -David > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 5:40 AM Harsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > LGTM. +1 (binding) > > > > -Harsha > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 1:46 AM, Satish Duggana < > > > satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) Thanks for the nice KIP. > > > > > > > > > > You may want to update the KIP saying that optional tagged fields > do > > > not > > > > > support complex types(or structs). > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 3:43 AM Jose Armando Garcia Sancio > > > > > <jsan...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to this improvement. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 12:49 PM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > Thank for the KIP. Great addition to the Kafka protocol! > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > Le mar. 3 sept. 2019 à 19:17, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> a > > > écrit > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-482: The Kafka Protocol should > > > Support > > > > > Optional Tagged Fields. > > > > > > > > > > KIP: > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > > > > KIP-482%3A+The+Kafka+Protocol+should+Support+Optional+Tagged+Fields > > > > > > > > > > Discussion thread here: > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > > > > > cdc801ae886491b73ef7efecac7ef81b24382f8b6b025899ee343f7a@ > %3Cdev.kafka. > > > > > apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > best, > > > > > Colin > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > -Jose > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > David Arthur > > > > > >
