Hi Omnia, Thank you for your patience with this KIP! I have a few quick thoughts:
1. Is the introduction of the new "ForwardingAdmin" class necessary, or can the same behavior can be achieved by subclassing the existing KafkaAdminClient class? 2. Would it be just as accurate to name the new Mirror Maker 2 property "admin.class" instead of "forwarding.admin.class"? I think brevity may work in our favor here 3. Would the admin class specified by the user also take effect for KIP-158 [1] style automatic topic creation? (Forgive me if this isn't applicable for Mirror Maker 2; I'm asking solely based on the knowledge that MM2 can be run as a source connector and has its own source task class [2].) 4. Would the admin class specified by the user also take effect for internal topics created by the Connect framework (i.e., the statue, config, and offsets topics)? The KIP states that Mirror Maker 2 will "Use ForwardingAdmin in MirrorUtils instead of TopicAdmin to create internal compacted topics", but IIUC these topics (the ones created with the MirrorUtils class) are Mirror Maker 2-specific and different from the Connect framework's internal topics. [1] - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-158%3A+Kafka+Connect+should+allow+source+connectors+to+set+topic-specific+settings+for+new+topics [2] - https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/4c9eeef5b2dff9a4f0977fbc5ac7eaaf930d0d0e/connect/mirror/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/connect/mirror/MirrorSourceTask.java Cheers, Chris On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 5:26 AM Omnia Ibrahim <o.g.h.ibra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, If there's no major concern anymore, I'll start the > voting process. > > On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 5:58 PM Omnia Ibrahim <o.g.h.ibra...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Colin, > > > > >Thanks for the clarification. I agree it's reasonable for people to want > > to use their own implementations of Admin. And we could have a config for > > this, so that it becomes pluggable (possibly in other places than > > MirrorMaker, although we don't have to do that in this KIP). > > > > > Allowing people to plug custom implementation of Admin in other places > > sounds like a neat idea indeed. It can be nice addition for example ` > > org.apache.kafka.connect.util.SharedTopicAdmin` in Connect to use custom > > Admin as well. But agree no need to have it in this KIP. > > >We could even try to make this easier on developers. For example, we > > could provide a public ForwardingAdmin class that forwards all requests > to > > the regular KafkaAdminClient. Then, people could make their custom class > > inherit from ForwardingAdmin and override >just the specific methods that > > they wanted to override. So they don't have to implement all the methods, > > but just the ones that are different for them. > > > > > >I just wanted to make sure we weren't creating a second Admin client > > interface -- I think that would really be hard for us to support > long-term. > > > > Forwarding would defiantly make it easier. I have updated the KIP to > > introduce ForwardingAdmin as well. > > > > regards, > > Omnia > > > > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 9:31 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, May 16, 2022, at 10:24, Omnia Ibrahim wrote: > >> > Hi Colin, > >> > > >> > Thanks for your reply. > >> > > >> > This KIP doesn’t aim to solve any security concerns, but rather a > >> conflict > >> > of responsibilities within any Kafka ecosystem that includes MM2 and > any > >> > resource management solution. I’m not sure that was clear, so I’m > >> concerned > >> > about the motivation for your suggestion to close this KIP. > >> > > >> > >> Hi Omnia, > >> > >> Thanks for the clarification. I agree it's reasonable for people to want > >> to use their own implementations of Admin. And we could have a config > for > >> this, so that it becomes pluggable (possibly in other places than > >> MirrorMaker, although we don't have to do that in this KIP). > >> > >> We could even try to make this easier on developers. For example, we > >> could provide a public ForwardingAdmin class that forwards all requests > to > >> the regular KafkaAdminClient. Then, people could make their custom class > >> inherit from ForwardingAdmin and override just the specific methods that > >> they wanted to override. So they don't have to implement all the > methods, > >> but just the ones that are different for them. > >> > >> I just wanted to make sure we weren't creating a second Admin client > >> interface -- I think that would really be hard for us to support > long-term. > >> > >> > > >> > It is generally accepted that resource management should be > centralized, > >> > especially on the scale of mirroring N number of clusters. The point > of > >> > this KIP is that any sort of topic management / federate solution / > >> > up-front capacity planning system will be at odds with MM2 if MM2 > keeps > >> > using the Admin client directly. > >> > > >> > >> Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. > >> > >> > > >> > I understand your concern that the interface proposed in the first > >> approach > >> > may become too similar to the existing Admin interface. I’ll update > the > >> > proposal by moving Ryanne’s previous suggestion to re-use the Admin > >> > interface and add configuration to accept a custom implementation. > >> > > >> > >> +1. > >> > >> > > >> > If you still feel this KIP should be closed but can understand its > >> > motivation I can close this one and create a new one. > >> > > >> > >> I think it's reasonable to keep this one open and make the changes you > >> talked about above. > >> > >> regards, > >> Colin > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Omnia > >> > > >> > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 6:10 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Wed, May 11, 2022, at 15:07, Omnia Ibrahim wrote: > >> >> > Hi Colin, > >> >> > I don't mind the idea of MM2 users implementing the AdminClient > >> >> interface. > >> >> > However, there're two disadvantages to this. > >> >> > > >> >> > 1. Having around 70 methods definitions to have "NotImplemented" > >> is > >> >> one > >> >> > downside, and keep up with these if the AdminClient interface > >> changes. > >> >> > 2. It makes it hard to list what admin functionality MM2 uses as > >> MM2 > >> >> > interactions with AdminClient in the codebase are in many > places. > >> >> > > >> >> > I guess it's OK for MM2 users who want to build their admin client > to > >> >> carry > >> >> > this burden, as I explained in my previous response to the > discussion > >> >> > thread. And we can do some cleanup to the codebase to have all > Admin > >> >> > interactions in MM2 in a utils class or something like that to make > >> it > >> >> > easier to navigate what MM2 needs from the Admin interface. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Hi Omnia, > >> >> > >> >> Anyone who wants to extend Kafka with proprietary tooling does need > to > >> >> keep up with the Kafka API. We have done everything we can to make > this > >> >> easier. We rigorously define what the API is through the KIP process, > >> and > >> >> make it possible to extend by making it an interface rather than > >> concrete > >> >> class. We also have a pretty lengthy deprecation process for these > >> APIs. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Maybe I'm misunderstanding the use-case you're describing here. But > >> it > >> >> >> seems to me that if you create a proxy that has the ability to do > >> any > >> >> admin > >> >> >> operation, and give MM2 access to that proxy, the security model > is > >> the > >> >> >> same as just giving MM2 admin access. (Or it may be worse if the > >> >> sysadmin > >> >> >> doesn't know what this proxy is doing, and doesn't lock it > down...) > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > MM2 runs with the assumption that it has > >> >> > > >> >> > - "CREATE" ACLs for topics on the source clusters to create > >> >> `heartbeat` > >> >> > topics. > >> >> > - "CREATE" and "ALTER" ACLs to create topics, add partitions, > >> update > >> >> > topics' config and topics' ACLs (in future, will also include > >> group > >> >> ACLS as > >> >> > Mikael mentioned before in the thread) on the destination > >> clusters. > >> >> > > >> >> > Most organisations have some resource management or federated > >> solutions > >> >> > (some would even have a budget system as part of these systems) to > >> manage > >> >> > Kafka resources, and these systems are usually the only application > >> >> allowed > >> >> > to initializing a client with "CREATE" and "ALTER" ACLs. They don't > >> grant > >> >> > these ACLs to any other teams/groups/applications to create such a > >> client > >> >> > outside these systems, so assuming MM2 can bypass these systems and > >> use > >> >> the > >> >> > AdminClient directly to create/update resources isn't valid. This > is > >> the > >> >> > primary concern here. > >> >> > > >> >> > The KIP is trying to give MM2 more flexibility to allow > >> organisations to > >> >> > integrate MM2 with their resource management system as they see fit > >> >> without > >> >> > forcing them to disable most MM2 features. > >> >> > > >> >> > Hope this make sense and clear it up. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> The point I was trying to make is that there is no additional > security > >> >> here. If you have some agent that has all the permissions, and MM2 > can > >> talk > >> >> to that agent and tell it what to do, then that is equivalent to just > >> >> giving MM2 all the permissions. So while there may be other reasons > to > >> use > >> >> this kind of agent-based architecture, added security isn't one. > >> >> > >> >> In any case, I think we should close this KIP since we already have > an > >> >> Admin API. There isn't a need to create a public API for admin > >> operations. > >> >> > >> >> best, > >> >> Colin > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 9:09 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Hi Omnia Ibrahim, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'm sorry, but I am -1 on adding competing Admin interfaces. This > >> would > >> >> >> create confusion and a heavier maintenance burden for the project. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Since the org.apache.kafka.clients.admin.Admin interface is a Java > >> >> >> interface, any third-party software that wants to insert its own > >> >> >> implementation of the interface can do so already. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> A KIP to make the Admin class used pluggable for MM2 would be > >> >> reasonable. > >> >> >> Adding a competing admin API is not. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It's true that there are many Admin methods, but you do not need > to > >> >> >> implement all of them -- just the ones that MirrorMaker uses. The > >> other > >> >> >> ones can throw a NotImplementedException or similar. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The current approach also assumes that the user running MM2 has > >> the > >> >> >> Admin right to > >> >> >> > create/update topics, which is only valid if the user who runs > MM2 > >> >> also > >> >> >> manages both > >> >> >> > source and destination clusters. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the use-case you're describing here. > But > >> it > >> >> >> seems to me that if you create a proxy that has the ability to do > >> any > >> >> admin > >> >> >> operation, and give MM2 access to that proxy, the security model > is > >> the > >> >> >> same as just giving MM2 admin access. (Or it may be worse if the > >> >> sysadmin > >> >> >> doesn't know what this proxy is doing, and doesn't lock it > down...) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> best, > >> >> >> Colin > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2022, at 13:21, Omnia Ibrahim wrote: > >> >> >> > Hi, I gave the KIP another look after talking to some people at > >> the > >> >> Kafka > >> >> >> > Summit in London. And I would like to clear up the motivation of > >> this > >> >> >> KIP. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > At the moment, MM2 has some opinionated decisions that are > >> creating > >> >> >> issues > >> >> >> > for teams that use IaC, federated solutions or have a > >> capacity/budget > >> >> >> > planning system for Kafka destination clusters. To explain it > >> better, > >> >> >> let's > >> >> >> > assume we have MM2 with the following configurations to > highlight > >> >> these > >> >> >> > problems. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > ``` > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > topics = .* > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > refresh.topics.enabled = true > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > sync.topic.configs.enabled = true > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > sync.topic.acls.enabled = true > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > // Maybe in futrue we can have sync.group.acls.enabled = true > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > ``` > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > These configurations allow us to run MM2 with the value of its > >> full > >> >> >> > features. However, there are two main concerns when we run on a > >> scale > >> >> >> with > >> >> >> > these configs: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 1. *Capacity/Budgeting Planning:* > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Functionality or features that impact capacity planning using > MM2 > >> are: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 1. MM2 automatically creates topics (breaking the rule of > >> >> >> > `auto.create.topics.enable=false`) and creates topic > >> partitions on > >> >> >> > destination clusters if the number of partitions increases on > >> the > >> >> >> source. > >> >> >> > In the previous example, this functionality will apply to any > >> topic > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> > matches the regex of the `topics` config. > >> >> >> > 2. Sync topic configs include configurations that impact > >> capacity > >> >> >> like ` > >> >> >> > retention.ms` and `retention.bytes`. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > These 2 points lead to adding new untracked capacity to > >> destination > >> >> >> > clusters without a way to count for them up-front or safeguard > the > >> >> >> cluster. > >> >> >> > The team that runs the cluster will only see the capacity issue > >> when > >> >> >> their > >> >> >> > disk usage hits the threshold for their alerts. The desk > capacity > >> >> issue > >> >> >> can > >> >> >> > be avoided if MM2 is flexible enough to > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > - have a way for teams that run their ecosystem to have MM2 > >> behave > >> >> >> > within their system. > >> >> >> > - disable the auto-creation and avoid syncing configs that > >> impact > >> >> >> > capacity > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 2. *Provisioning conflict:* > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > In the previous MM2 configurations; we ended up with conflict as > >> MM2 > >> >> used > >> >> >> > `AdminClient` directly to perform the following functionality > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > - Create a Kafka topic (no way to disable this at the > moment) > >> >> >> > - Add new Kafka partitions (no way to disable this at the > >> moment) > >> >> >> > - Sync Kafka Topic configurations (can be disabled, but then > >> this > >> >> >> > reduces the value of MM2 potential for users) > >> >> >> > - Sync Kafka topic's ACLs (can be disabled, but this reduces > >> the > >> >> >> users' > >> >> >> > value). Disabling this feature also means that users must > >> ensure > >> >> they > >> >> >> have > >> >> >> > the right ACLs to the mirrored topics on the destination > >> cluster > >> >> >> before > >> >> >> > switching their consumers, especially when MM2 is used for > >> disaster > >> >> >> > recovery. It may lead to extra downtime for them. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > All these functionalities are using AdminClient; which causes an > >> issue > >> >> >> with > >> >> >> > teams that > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > - Manage their Kafka resources using tools like Strimizi or > >> custom > >> >> >> > federated solutions. For example, Strimizi's UserOperator > >> doesn't > >> >> >> sync the > >> >> >> > topic ACLs when MM2 is enabled. Strimzi documentation > mentions > >> that > >> >> >> users > >> >> >> > must to disable MM2 `sync.topic.acls.enabled` if they use > >> >> >> `UserOperator`. > >> >> >> > On the other hand, Strimizi's TopicOperator doesn't have the > >> same > >> >> >> issue > >> >> >> > because it has a bi-directional reconciliation process that > >> watches > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> > topics state on the Kafka cluster and updates KafkaTopic > >> resources > >> >> for > >> >> >> > Strimzi. This design works fine with Kafka MM2 for Topics but > >> not > >> >> for > >> >> >> > syncing ACLs. Strimizi TopicOperator also doesn't have a way > to > >> >> stop > >> >> >> > syncing config that impact capacity for example retention > >> configs. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > - Teams that run MM2 but don't own the destination cluster. > In > >> this > >> >> >> > case, these teams don't have Admin access, but they may have > >> Kafka > >> >> >> > management solutions, such as yahoo/CMAK or an in-house > >> solution. > >> >> For > >> >> >> such > >> >> >> > a tool as CMAK, these teams can update/create resources using > >> CMAK > >> >> >> REST API. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > The Proposed KIP gives users the flexibility to integrate MM2 > >> within > >> >> >> their > >> >> >> > ecosystem without disabling any MM2 features. We can achieve > this > >> >> >> > flexibility with one of the following solutions. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 1. Introduce a new interface that hides Admin interactions in > >> one > >> >> >> place. > >> >> >> > Then users can provide their way of resource management. As > >> well as > >> >> >> clean > >> >> >> > up the MM2 code by having one place that manages the > >> resources, as > >> >> at > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> > moment, MM2 usage of AdminClient is all over the code. > >> >> >> > 2. The second solution could be to add only a new config that > >> >> allows > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> > users to override AdminClient with another implementation of > >> the > >> >> >> > AdminClient interface, as Ryanne suggested before. The > >> downside is > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> > AdminClient is enormous and constantly under development, so > >> any > >> >> >> users who > >> >> >> > opt-in for custom implementation will need to carry this > >> burden. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I favour the first solution as it will make it either later to > >> add any > >> >> >> new > >> >> >> > feature related to resource management. But don't mind if others > >> think > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> > the second solution is easier for MM2 design. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > *Note*: There are two possible future KIPs following this KIP to > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 1. Add config to disable MM2 from auto creating or adding new > >> topic > >> >> >> > partitions. > >> >> >> > 2. Add a way to exclude a specific topic's configuration from > >> being > >> >> >> > synced. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I hope this clears up the problem better. Please let me know > what > >> do > >> >> you > >> >> >> > think. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 3:26 PM Omnia Ibrahim < > >> o.g.h.ibra...@gmail.com > >> >> > > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> Hi Mickael. Thanks for the feedback. I address some of your > >> points > >> >> >> below. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> *> This seems to address a relatively advanced and specific use > >> case* > >> >> >> >> The main point of the KIP is that MM2 is making a massive > >> assumption > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> it has the right to alter/create resources. This assumption > isn't > >> >> valid > >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> the world of Infra-as-Code, federated solutions and popularity > >> of OS > >> >> >> Kafka > >> >> >> >> Kubernetes operators; these infra/resource management solutions > >> >> aren't > >> >> >> >> advanced use-cases anymore nowadays. These concerns had been > >> raised > >> >> in > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> past, especially regarding the assumption that MM2 can create > >> topics > >> >> on > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> destination cluster. For example, > >> >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-12753 and > >> >> >> >> > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg119340.html > >> . > >> >> >> >> The primary motivation is giving some power to data > >> >> >> >> platform/infrastructure team to make MM2 part of their internal > >> Kafka > >> >> >> >> ecosystem without dropping the main features that make MM2 > >> valuable, > >> >> >> like > >> >> >> >> syncing topic configs. For example, if someone uses any OS > Kafka > >> k8s > >> >> >> >> operator, they can implement the class to interact with the k8s > >> >> >> operator to > >> >> >> >> create these resources. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> *> My initial concern is this may make it hard to evolve > >> MirrorMaker > >> >> as > >> >> >> >> we'll likely need to update this new interface if new features > >> are > >> >> >> added.* > >> >> >> >> I agree it's a disadvantage to adding a new interface however > >> adding > >> >> >> more > >> >> >> >> admin interactions from MM2 to alter/create resources and > access > >> will > >> >> >> feed > >> >> >> >> the main issue as I mentioned above with the popularity of IaC > >> and > >> >> >> >> federated solutions; most data platform/infrastructure teams > will > >> >> endup > >> >> >> >> disabling these new features. > >> >> >> >> Also, at the moment, most MM2 interactions with the admin > client > >> are > >> >> >> >> scattered across the codebase so having one place where all > admin > >> >> >> >> interactions are listed isn't a bad thing. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> *> For example if we wanted to sync group ACLs.* > >> >> >> >> As I mentioned before, altering any resource's configurations > >> with > >> >> MM2 > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> the one main concern for any data platform/infrastructure team > >> that > >> >> >> wants > >> >> >> >> to have control over their clusters and use MM2. So the main > >> question > >> >> >> with > >> >> >> >> adding any new altering feature like sync group ACLs will raise > >> the > >> >> same > >> >> >> >> question of how many teams will actually enable this feature. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> *>Regarding the proposed API, I have a few suggestions: >- What > >> about > >> >> >> >> using configure() instead of the constructor to pass the > >> >> >configuration, > >> >> >> >> especially as it's implementing Configurable >- It's not clear > >> what > >> >> all > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> arguments of createTopicPartitions()>are. What's the difference > >> >> between > >> >> >> >> partitionCounts and newPartitions?>Should we have separate > >> methods > >> >> for > >> >> >> >> creating topics and partitions? >- Do we really need > >> >> >> >> createCompactedTopic()? >- Instead of updateTopicConfigs() and > >> >> >> updateAcls() > >> >> >> >> should we use the >"alter" prefix to stay consistent with > Admin?* > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> These are good suggestions that will update the KIP to address > >> these. > >> >> >> >> Regarding the `createCompactedTopic` MM2 is using this method > to > >> >> create > >> >> >> >> internal topics. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Thanks > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 1:55 PM Mickael Maison < > >> >> >> mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> Hi Omnia, > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> Thanks for the KIP, sorry for taking so long to comment. I've > >> only > >> >> had > >> >> >> >>> time to take a quick look so far. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> This seems to address a relatively advanced and specific use > >> case. > >> >> My > >> >> >> >>> initial concern is this may make it hard to evolve MirrorMaker > >> as > >> >> >> >>> we'll likely need to update this new interface if new features > >> are > >> >> >> >>> added. For example if we wanted to sync group ACLs. > >> >> >> >>> I'm wondering if it's something you've thought about. I'm not > >> saying > >> >> >> >>> it's a blocker but we have to weigh the pros and cons when > >> >> introducing > >> >> >> >>> new features. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> Regarding the proposed API, I have a few suggestions: > >> >> >> >>> - What about using configure() instead of the constructor to > >> pass > >> >> the > >> >> >> >>> configuration, especially as it's implementing Configurable > >> >> >> >>> - It's not clear what all the arguments of > >> createTopicPartitions() > >> >> >> >>> are. What's the difference between partitionCounts and > >> >> newPartitions? > >> >> >> >>> Should we have separate methods for creating topics and > >> partitions? > >> >> >> >>> - Do we really need createCompactedTopic()? > >> >> >> >>> - Instead of updateTopicConfigs() and updateAcls() should we > >> use the > >> >> >> >>> "alter" prefix to stay consistent with Admin? > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> Thanks, > >> >> >> >>> Mickael > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 11:26 AM Omnia Ibrahim < > >> >> >> o.g.h.ibra...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >>> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > Hi, > >> >> >> >>> > If there are no more concerns regarding the proposal can I > get > >> >> some > >> >> >> >>> votes on the KIP here > >> >> >> >>> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/950lpxjb5kbjm8qdszlpxm9h4j4sfyjx > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > Thanks > >> >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 3:54 PM Ryanne Dolan < > >> >> ryannedo...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >>> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> Well I'm convinced! Thanks for looking into it. > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> Ryanne > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021, 8:49 AM Omnia Ibrahim < > >> >> >> o.g.h.ibra...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >>> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >> >>> >> > I checked the difference between the number of methods in > >> the > >> >> >> Admin > >> >> >> >>> >> > interface and the number of methods MM2 invokes from > >> Admin, and > >> >> >> this > >> >> >> >>> diff > >> >> >> >>> >> > is enormous (it's more than 70 methods). > >> >> >> >>> >> > As far as I can see, the following methods MM2 depends on > >> (in > >> >> >> >>> >> > MirrorSourceConnector, MirrorMaker, MirrorCheckpointTask > >> and > >> >> >> >>> >> > MirrorCheckpointConnector), this will leave 73 methods on > >> the > >> >> >> Admin > >> >> >> >>> >> > interface that customer will need to return dummy data > for, > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > 1. create(conf) > >> >> >> >>> >> > 2. close > >> >> >> >>> >> > 3. listTopics() > >> >> >> >>> >> > 4. createTopics(newTopics, createTopicsOptions) > >> >> >> >>> >> > 5. createPartitions(newPartitions) > >> >> >> >>> >> > 6. alterConfigs(configs) // this method is marked for > >> >> >> >>> deprecation in > >> >> >> >>> >> > Admin and the ConfigResource MM2 use is only TOPIC > >> >> >> >>> >> > 7. createAcls(aclBindings) // the list of bindings > >> always > >> >> >> >>> filtered by > >> >> >> >>> >> > TOPIC > >> >> >> >>> >> > 8. describeAcls(aclBindingFilter) // filter is always > >> >> >> >>> ANY_TOPIC_ACL > >> >> >> >>> >> > 9. describeConfigs(configResources) // Always for > TOPIC > >> >> >> resources > >> >> >> >>> >> > 10. listConsumerGroupOffsets(groupId) > >> >> >> >>> >> > 11. listConsumerGroups() > >> >> >> >>> >> > 12. alterConsumerGroupOffsets(groupId, offsets) > >> >> >> >>> >> > 13. describeCluster() // this is invoked from > >> >> >> >>> >> > ConnectUtils.lookupKafkaClusterId(conf), > >> >> >> >>> >> > but MM2 isn't the one that initialize the AdminClient > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > Going with the Admin interface in practice will make any > >> custom > >> >> >> Admin > >> >> >> >>> >> > implementation humongous even for a fringe use case > >> because of > >> >> the > >> >> >> >>> number > >> >> >> >>> >> > of methods that need to return dummy data, > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > I am still leaning toward a new interface as it abstract > >> all > >> >> MM2's > >> >> >> >>> >> > interaction with Kafka Resources in one place; this makes > >> it > >> >> >> easier > >> >> >> >>> to > >> >> >> >>> >> > maintain and make it easier for the use cases where > >> customers > >> >> >> wish to > >> >> >> >>> >> > provide a different method to handle resources. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > Omnia > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 4:10 PM Ryanne Dolan < > >> >> >> ryannedo...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >>> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > I like the idea of failing-fast whenever a custom impl > is > >> >> >> >>> provided, but I > >> >> >> >>> >> > > suppose that that could be done for Admin as well. I > >> agree > >> >> your > >> >> >> >>> proposal > >> >> >> >>> >> > is > >> >> >> >>> >> > > more ergonomic, but maybe it's okay to have a little > >> >> friction in > >> >> >> >>> such > >> >> >> >>> >> > > fringe use-cases. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > Ryanne > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 6:23 AM Omnia Ibrahim < > >> >> >> >>> o.g.h.ibra...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >>> >> > > wrote: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > Hey Ryanne, Thanks fo the quick feedback. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > Using the Admin interface would make everything > >> easier, as > >> >> MM2 > >> >> >> >>> will > >> >> >> >>> >> > need > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > only to configure the classpath for the new > >> implementation > >> >> and > >> >> >> >>> use it > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > instead of AdminClient. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > However, I have two concerns > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > 1. The Admin interface is enormous, and the MM2 users > >> will > >> >> >> need > >> >> >> >>> to know > >> >> >> >>> >> > > the > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > list of methods MM2 depends on and override these > only > >> >> >> instead of > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > implementing the whole Admin interface. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > 2. MM2 users will need keep an eye on any changes to > >> Admin > >> >> >> >>> interface > >> >> >> >>> >> > that > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > impact MM2 for example deprecating methods. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > Am not sure if adding these concerns on the users is > >> >> >> acceptable > >> >> >> >>> or not. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > One solution to address these concerns could be > adding > >> some > >> >> >> >>> checks to > >> >> >> >>> >> > > make > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > sure the methods MM2 uses from the Admin interface > >> exists > >> >> to > >> >> >> fail > >> >> >> >>> >> > faster. > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > What do you think > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > Omnia > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:24 PM Ryanne Dolan < > >> >> >> >>> ryannedo...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > wrote: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Thanks Omnia, neat idea. I wonder if we could use > the > >> >> >> existing > >> >> >> >>> Admin > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > interface instead of defining a new one? > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > Ryanne > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 12:54 PM Omnia Ibrahim < > >> >> >> >>> >> > o.g.h.ibra...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > wrote: > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > Hey everyone, > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > Please take a look at KIP-787 > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-787%3A+MM2+Interface+to+manage+Kafka+resources > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > < > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-787%3A+MM2+Interface+to+manage+Kafka+resources > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > Thanks for the feedback and support > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > Omnia > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >
