Hi Greg, Chris
Thanks for the in-depth discussion, I have a couple of discussion points
and would like your thoughts on this.
1) One concern I have with the new addition of 'soft' and 'hard' version
requirements is that there could be a mismatch in the plugin version that
two different tasks are running, if a soft requirement is provided and the
nodes a multi cluster deployment are not in sync w.r.t the plugin versions
that they are configured with. Note that if my assumptions are correct then
this can happen with the existing framework as well, or is there some
safeguard from this happening? So far, we could have pointed to the
misconfigured cluster configuration and somewhat differ this problem to
something outside of connect runtime. With this feature in place perhaps
the expectation is more on connect to not be running with such
inconsistency, especially if a connector version is specified. This is also
a problem with validation if different cluster have different
configurations, as IIRC validations are local to the worker which receives
the rest call for validate. So, we might be validating with a certain
version which is different from the one that will be used to create
connector and tasks. Again, this is likely how the current state is, but
perhaps such inconsistencies warrant a deeper look with the addition of
this feature. The problems associated with them can be somewhat insidious
and hard to diagnose.
2) There was some discussion on the need for a new REST endpoint to provide
information on the versions of running connectors, and I think adding this
information via REST is a valuable addition. The way I see it the version
is an intrinsic property of an instance of a running connector and hence
this should be part of the set of APIs under /connector/<connector-name>
(also the /connectors API should also have this information as it is an
amalgamation of all the individual connector information). We can introduce
a new path under this for version (/connector/connector-name/version), but
perhaps adding this as part of the status is a valid alternative. This is
mentioned as a rejected alternative right now. Also, to go further I think
version information for tasks could also be available, especially if we
choose to not address the pitfalls discussed in my point 1), this will
at-least provide admins a quick and easy way to determine if such and
inconsistent state exist in any of the connectors.
Thanks again for reviving my original KIP and working to improve it.
Looking forward to your thoughts on the points mentioned above.
Regards
Snehashis
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 9:59 PM Chris Egerton <chr...@aiven.io.invalid>
wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> First, an apology! I mistakenly assumed that each plugin appeared only once
> in the responses from GET /connector-plugins?connectorsOnly=false. Thank
> you for correcting me and pointing out that all versions of each plugin
> appear in that response, which does indeed satisfy my desire for users to
> discover this information in at most two REST requests (and in fact, does
> it in only one)!
>
> And secondly, with the revelation about recommenders, I agree that it's
> best to leave the "version" property out of the lists of properties
> returned from the GET /connector-plugins/<plugin>/config endpoint.
>
> With those two points settled, I think the only unresolved item is the
> small change to version parsing added to the KIP (where raw version numbers
> are treated as an exact match, instead of a best-effort match with a
> fallback on the default version). If the KIP is updated with that then I'd
> be ready to vote on it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 12:00 PM Greg Harris <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hey Chris,
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts.
> >
> > > Won't it still only expose the
> > > latest version for each plugin, instead of the range of versions
> > available?
> >
> > Here is a snippet of the current output of the GET
> > /connector-plugins?connectorsOnly=false endpoint, after I installed two
> > versions of the debezium PostgresConnector:
> >
> > {
> > "class": "io.debezium.connector.postgresql.PostgresConnector",
> > "type": "source",
> > "version": "2.0.1.Final"
> > },
> > {
> > "class": "io.debezium.connector.postgresql.PostgresConnector",
> > "type": "source",
> > "version": "2.6.1.Final"
> > },
> >
> > I think this satisfies your requirement to learn about all plugins and
> all
> > versions in two or fewer REST calls.
> >
> > I tried to get an example of the output of `/config` by hardcoding the
> > Recommender, and realized that Recommenders aren't executed on the
> > `/config` endpoint at all: only during validation, when a configuration
> is
> > actually present.
> > And this led me to discover that the `/config` endpoint returns a
> > List<ConfigKeyInfo>, and ConfigKeyInfo does not contain a
> recommendedValues
> > field. The ConfigValue field is the object which contains
> > recommendedValues, and it is only generated during validation.
> > I think it's out of scope to start calling recommenders on empty configs
> > that might throw exceptions, changing the existing REST entities, or
> > changing the core ConfigDef implementation.
> > Someone could add this functionality later, I don't think it's necessary
> > here.
> >
> > Then the question is: should "version" without recommenders appear in
> > non-connector plugins? I think I'd rather be consistent with "predicate"
> > and "negate" on release, and let a later improvement add them.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 8:06 AM Chris Egerton <chr...@aiven.io.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Greg,
> > >
> > > I'm confused about the behavior for GET
> > > /connector-plugins?connectorsOnly=false. Won't it still only expose the
> > > latest version for each plugin, instead of the range of versions
> > available?
> > >
> > > I'm hoping we can provide a flow where people need at most two REST
> calls
> > > to discover 1) the complete set of plugins available on the worker
> (which
> > > is already possible with the endpoint under discussion) and 2) the set
> of
> > > versions available for a specific plugin on the worker (which doesn't
> > > appear to be possible, at least for some plugin types). This wouldn't
> > > require any out-of-band knowledge and would be valuable for connector
> > users
> > > (who may want to, for example, know what their options are when
> > considering
> > > a plugin upgrade) and cluster administrators (who could use it as a
> > sanity
> > > check for the setup of their Kafka Connect clusters without having to
> > pore
> > > over log files).
> > >
> > > As far as modifying the content of the GET
> > > /connector-plugins/<plugin>/config endpoint to include a "version"
> > property
> > > goes, I think your point about returning that property from requests to
> > > that endpoint that include a version query parameter is salient, but it
> > > also unfortunately applies to all types of plugin. I don't think it
> > should
> > > completely disqualify that option. I also wasn't imagining adding
> > anything
> > > besides that single property to that endpoint, so no new "predicate"
> > > property for SMTs, no new "negate" property for predicates, and no new
> > > "type" property for either. I'm not necessarily opposed to adding
> those,
> > > but it can be done without being pulled into the scope of this KIP.
> > >
> > > So to summarize how I imagine people might use the REST API after this
> > KIP:
> > >
> > > 1. Discover the set of plugins on the worker via GET
> > > /connector-plugins?connectorsOnly=false
> > > 2. For any of those plugins, discover the set of available versions by
> > > examining the recommended values for the "version" property after
> hitting
> > > the GET GET /connector-plugins/<plugin>/config endpoint
> > >
> > > I don't think this is necessarily optimal since plucking the "version"
> > > property out of the response from that endpoint might be a PITA for ad
> > hoc
> > > queries via, e.g., curl, but I think it'd be enough for this KIP. Still
> > > open to other options though, and if I've misunderstood anything in the
> > > proposal, please let me know!
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 4:05 PM Greg Harris
> <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey Chris,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your comments, and I'm glad that it seems like we're
> > > > aligning on the vision here.
> > > >
> > > > > An
> > > > > alternative could be to change existing behavior to fail fast on
> any
> > > > > invalid default converter configuration instead of just for invalid
> > > > > versions
> > > >
> > > > I suppose if this is landing in 4.0, we have the opportunity to break
> > > > compatibility and strictly validate the worker class configs, and
> > > > could have a new consistent behavior instead of inconsistent but
> > > > backwards-compatible behavior.
> > > >
> > > > > no other part of the KIP requires this change.
> > > >
> > > > This is correct, and a compelling argument. I'm fine leaving the
> > > > strict worker validation off of this configuration to potentially be
> > > > added later. If a KIP was raised to perform strict validation of the
> > > > worker config, it would include the version config, and can address
> > > > backwards compatibility for both configs together.
> > > >
> > > > > RE exposing the version property in the
> > > > /connector-plugins/<plugin>/config
> > > > > endpoint, the behavior is inconsistent across plugin types.
> > > >
> > > > Yes it is, and that started in a bugfix, once people started using
> > > > this endpoint: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14843 . I
> > > > wasn't planning on converging the behavior in this KIP, as I
> > > > considered it out-of-scope, and was going to follow the current
> > > > behavior. To summarize:
> > > >
> > > > GET /connector-plugins/<connector>/config will emit:
> > > > * connector.class (already implemented)
> > > > * connector.version (new)
> > > > * key.converter (already implemented)
> > > > * key.converter.version (new)
> > > > * value.converter (already implemented)
> > > > * value.converter.version (new)
> > > > * header.converter (already implemented)
> > > > * header.converter.version (new)
> > > > But will NOT emit:
> > > > * transforms.<alias>.type
> > > > * transforms.<alias>.version
> > > > * transforms.<alias>.predicate
> > > > * predicates.<alias>.type
> > > > * predicates.<alias>.version
> > > > * predicates.<alias>.negate
> > > >
> > > > GET /connector-plugins/<converter>/config will NOT emit:
> > > > * "" (there's not even a ".class" prefix!)
> > > > * version
> > > >
> > > > GET /connector-plugins/<transform>/config will NOT emit:
> > > > * type
> > > > * version
> > > > * predicate
> > > >
> > > > GET /connector-plugins/<predicate>/config will NOT emit:
> > > > * type
> > > > * version
> > > > * negate
> > > >
> > > > Do you want the converter, transform, and predicate endpoints
> changed?
> > > > Do you want just "version", or do you want all of the prefixed
> configs
> > > > including "type", "predicate" and "negate"? How would you want to
> > > > handle the converters?
> > > > And when I say the configs are "not part of the plugin config itself"
> > > > I mean that saying that GET
> > > > /connector-plugins/Flatten$Key/config?version=3.8.0 has a "version"
> > > > config that must be "3.8.0" is a little bit nonsense, as the version
> > > > is already specified.
> > > >
> > > > > IMO
> > > > > it's worth including this information somewhere directly accessible
> > > > without
> > > > > having to provide a full connector config. FWIW I'd be fine with
> GET
> > > > > /connector-plugins/<plugin>/versions as a first-class endpoint
> > > >
> > > > You don't have to provide a configuration to call GET
> > > > /connector-plugins?connectorsOnly=false , is that endpoint not close
> > > > enough to what you have in mind? See also the Rejected Alternative
> > > > "Adding new REST API endpoints"
> > > >
> > > > If you're calling /connector-plugins/<transform>/config, you know the
> > > > name of a plugin right? That either comes from out-of-band knowledge,
> > > > validating a connector config, or calling GET
> > > > /connector-plugins?connectorsOnly=false.
> > > > * If you have out-of-band knowledge of plugin classes, perhaps you
> > > > have out-of-band knowledge of versions too.
> > > > * If you've just validated a connector config, there should be an
> > > > accompanying "version" field there with an accurate default value and
> > > > recommenders.
> > > > * If you've called GET /connector-plugins?connectorsOnly=false, that
> > > > endpoint includes version information.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Greg
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 11:05 AM Chris Egerton
> <chr...@aiven.io.invalid
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope you had a nice weekend! Gonna try to keep things concise.
> > > > >
> > > > > Concluded points:
> > > > >
> > > > > RE version recommenders, I agree it's likely that programmatic UIs
> > will
> > > > > already be able to handle dynamic configuration definitions, and
> the
> > > > detail
> > > > > about SMTs is a great point. I still anticipate some awkwardness
> with
> > > > > connector versions, though: if the latest version supports some new
> > > > > properties, then a user switches to an earlier version, a UI may
> > > respond
> > > > by
> > > > > wiping values for these properties. I guess we can bite the bullet,
> > > > though.
> > > > >
> > > > > RE double-dinging during preflight validation for invalid
> versions, I
> > > > like
> > > > > the analogy with login credentials. I'm convinced that the proposal
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > KIP is best 👍
> > > > >
> > > > > Continued points:
> > > > >
> > > > > RE failing on worker startup, sorry, I should be clearer: there is
> no
> > > > _new_
> > > > > justification for it that doesn't also apply to existing behavior.
> We
> > > > > shouldn't diverge from existing behavior solely for this new case.
> An
> > > > > alternative could be to change existing behavior to fail fast on
> any
> > > > > invalid default converter configuration instead of just for invalid
> > > > > versions, but I'd vote to just stick to existing behavior and not
> > > > > complicate things, especially since no other part of the KIP
> requires
> > > > this
> > > > > change.
> > > > >
> > > > > RE exposing the version property in the
> > > > /connector-plugins/<plugin>/config
> > > > > endpoint, the behavior is inconsistent across plugin types. Hitting
> > the
> > > > > endpoint for the FileStreamSinkConnector on version 3.7.0 yields a
> > > > response
> > > > > that includes, among other things, the "topics", "topics.regex",
> and
> > > > > "errors.tolerance" properties. I see that we don't do this
> everywhere
> > > > (the
> > > > > examples you cite for SMT and converter properties are accurate),
> but
> > > IMO
> > > > > it's worth including this information somewhere directly accessible
> > > > without
> > > > > having to provide a full connector config. FWIW I'd be fine with
> GET
> > > > > /connector-plugins/<plugin>/versions as a first-class endpoint
> either
> > > > > instead of or in addition to adding recommended values for all
> plugin
> > > > > versions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your continued work on this KIP, and with the progress
> > we're
> > > > > making I'm optimistic about its chances of appearing in 4.0.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 1:22 PM Greg Harris
> > > <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Chris,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your quick follow up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > But this risk is already present with
> > > > > > > existing error cases, and I don't see anything that justifies
> > > > changing
> > > > > > > existing behavior with an invalid converter class, or diverging
> > > from
> > > > it
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the case of invalid converter versions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The justification is to fail-fast, and prevent REST API users
> from
> > > > > > receiving errors from bad configs that they didn't write, or
> maybe
> > > > > > don't even know apply to them.
> > > > > > Up until recently errors in these configurations surfaced as
> > failures
> > > > > > to create the connector, or failures to start, and you made them
> > > > > > fail-fast during validation. I think this change is in the same
> > > > > > spirit, pulling the validation further forward and not letting
> > errors
> > > > > > lie dormant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And to call back to your original concern about interrupting
> > > > > > connectors that explicitly provide these configurations and don't
> > use
> > > > > > the worker configs: I expect that operators with a majority of
> > these
> > > > > > sorts of clients aren't going to be setting the worker .version
> > > > > > properties, because it would have no effect on the majority of
> > their
> > > > > > connectors. They would be able to rely on backwards-compatibility
> > and
> > > > > > continue to ignore the class properties.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > CLI
> > > > > > > and programmatic UI developers will want to develop their own
> > > tooling
> > > > > > > layers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a very compelling argument. Snehashis do you want to
> figure
> > > > > > out a REST API design for this use-case?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding the GET /connector-plugins/<plugin>/config endpoint,
> I
> > > was
> > > > > > > thinking about the response for non-connector plugins, e.g.,
> > > > > > > GET /connector-plugins/RegexRouter/config. Would a "version"
> > > property
> > > > > > > appear with recommended values?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I intended for the ".version" property to be like other framework
> > > > > > configs (".class", ".type", ".predicate", ".negate") where they
> are
> > > > > > inside the plugin namespace, but not part of the plugin config
> > > itself.
> > > > > > Perhaps we can deviate from those configs because it would aid in
> > > > > > discovering other valid `GET
> > > > > > /connector-plugins/<plugin>/config?version=` calls, without
> calling
> > > > > > `GET /connector-plugins?connectorsOnly=false`.
> > > > > > I don't really feel strongly either way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > if a user changes the
> > > > > > > connector version in, e.g., a dropdown menu, then the UI either
> > has
> > > > to
> > > > > > > re-fetch the ConfigDef for the new version, or risk operating
> on
> > > > stale
> > > > > > > information
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a really interesting situation, thanks for finding that!
> > This
> > > > > > is already a footgun with transformations and predicates; Once
> you
> > > > > > fill out a transformation class (which includes a recommender)
> you
> > > > > > will then see all of the transformations configurations.
> > > > > > I think this means that UI developers should have already
> developed
> > > > > > the infrastructure for handling dynamic recommenders, or else
> > they've
> > > > > > had this bug since KIP-66 in 2017. It may require some manual
> > > > > > attention to roll-out support for the ".version" properties
> > > > > > specifically, but I don't think that should prevent us from
> > providing
> > > > > > this information in a natural place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > but will it be possible to configure
> > > > > > > a connector to use two instances of the same transform or
> > > predicate,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > with different versions for each?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, and this is included in the example in the KIP,
> > > > > > `transforms.flatten-latest` and `transforms.flatten-old`. This
> will
> > > > > > work in the natural way, with the two instances having a
> different
> > > > > > version if configured for that. If a user wants to pin the same
> > > > > > version of a plugin for every instance, they will need to provide
> > the
> > > > > > version config multiple times and keep them in-sync themselves.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would have expected the error
> > > > > > > to only be attributed to the version property, and for the
> class
> > > > property
> > > > > > > to be reported as valid.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I considered this, and then went back and changed it. To quote
> > > someone
> > > > > > else, this is to catch "misspelling cat as dog". For example a
> user
> > > > > > types DogConverter and meant to type CatConverter, and then
> types a
> > > > > > version which is valid for CatConverter, conceptually the error
> is
> > in
> > > > > > the class name and not the version.
> > > > > > That's a very contrived scenario, but I think similar arguments
> are
> > > > > > used for attributing validation errors to
> endpoints/urls/hostnames
> > > > > > when the associated credentials are unable to log into the remote
> > > > > > system. Did the user provide the correct testing credentials, but
> > > > > > accidentally typed the production endpoint? Even if the
> production
> > > > > > endpoint looks valid (it's a real hostname that is reachable) the
> > > > > > conceptual error is still in the hostname and should have the
> error
> > > > > > attributed to it to draw the user's attention.
> > > > > > If that's not convincing, I think the alternative of only
> > attributing
> > > > > > version errors to the version property is also acceptable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Greg
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 8:06 AM Chris Egerton
> > > <chr...@aiven.io.invalid
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for your responses! Continuations of existing
> discussions:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding crashing the worker on startup--yes, there is also a
> > risk
> > > > to
> > > > > > > allowing it to join the cluster. But this risk is already
> present
> > > > with
> > > > > > > existing error cases, and I don't see anything that justifies
> > > > changing
> > > > > > > existing behavior with an invalid converter class, or diverging
> > > from
> > > > it
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the case of invalid converter versions. I think we should keep
> > this
> > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > and not do anything different for worker startup than we do
> > > already.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as REST API vs. metrics go--I think you're right that
> the
> > > > original
> > > > > > > version metrics were added as a "monitoring" detail. However,
> > this
> > > > was
> > > > > > back
> > > > > > > when plugin versions were managed solely by cluster
> > administrators.
> > > > With
> > > > > > > this KIP, connector users will be able to manage plugin
> versions,
> > > > and CLI
> > > > > > > and programmatic UI developers will want to develop their own
> > > tooling
> > > > > > > layers. I think focusing on the REST API as the primary
> interface
> > > for
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > KIP would be best for these users.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (All that said, I don't object to the metrics that are proposed
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > KIP;
> > > > > > > I just think they make more sense in addition to new REST API
> > > > > > > functionality, as opposed to instead of it.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding the GET /connector-plugins/<plugin>/config endpoint,
> I
> > > was
> > > > > > > thinking about the response for non-connector plugins, e.g.,
> > > > > > > GET /connector-plugins/RegexRouter/config. Would a "version"
> > > property
> > > > > > > appear with recommended values?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And new thoughts:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) Regarding the recommended values for "connector.version",
> this
> > > > might
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > confusing since there could be differences between the
> ConfigDefs
> > > > for the
> > > > > > > latest version of the connector and prior versions. It also
> makes
> > > the
> > > > > > flow
> > > > > > > a bit awkward for programmatic UI developers: if a user changes
> > the
> > > > > > > connector version in, e.g., a dropdown menu, then the UI either
> > has
> > > > to
> > > > > > > re-fetch the ConfigDef for the new version, or risk operating
> on
> > > > stale
> > > > > > > information. I'm starting to doubt that exposing the range of
> > > > available
> > > > > > > versions via recommended values is the best way to proceed,
> > instead
> > > > of a
> > > > > > > more explicit approach like GET
> > > > /connector-plugins/<plugin>/versions, or
> > > > > > > the "Adding new REST API endpoints" rejected alternative.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) I know that this is a bit heinous, but will it be possible
> to
> > > > > > configure
> > > > > > > a connector to use two instances of the same transform or
> > > predicate,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > with different versions for each? (I don't think this is worth
> > > > > > significant
> > > > > > > design/implementation effort, so if it would inflate either of
> > > those,
> > > > > > > please don't feel obligated to support it.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3) Just out of curiosity, why double-ding during config
> > validation
> > > > if the
> > > > > > > version for a plugin class can't be found? I would have
> expected
> > > the
> > > > > > error
> > > > > > > to only be attributed to the version property, and for the
> class
> > > > property
> > > > > > > to be reported as valid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 1:11 PM Greg Harris
> > > > <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey Chris,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for your comments. I'm glad you like the motivations,
> > > > Snehashis
> > > > > > > > wrote that part!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > the configuration syntax for the most basic use case of
> > > > > > > > > specifying a single desired version is pretty
> > counterintuitive.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree, and the "soft" requirement scheme is something I
> > wasn't
> > > > > > > > explicitly looking for, but would be inherited from the
> > library.
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > fine with eliminating the soft requirement semantics, and
> > having
> > > > > > > > "1.0.0" behave the same as "[1.0.0]". I'm less inclined to
> > > include
> > > > > > > > "range" in the property name, or have two properties.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Failing startup is drastic and has the potential to disrupt
> > the
> > > > > > > > > availability of connectors that would otherwise be able to
> > run
> > > > > > healthily
> > > > > > > > > because they were explicitly configured to use valid
> > converters
> > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the worker defaults.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think this argument cuts both ways. If someone
> reconfigures a
> > > > worker
> > > > > > > > and adds an invalid ".version" string to the worker (or
> changes
> > > the
> > > > > > > > plugin.path to make it invalid), it would be permitted to
> enter
> > > the
> > > > > > > > group, and accept work assignments. If those work assignments
> > > used
> > > > > > > > these configurations, a set of tasks could transition to
> FAILED
> > > and
> > > > > > > > not be able to recover, because they would be restarted again
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > same worker.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why are metrics utilized to report information about plugin
> > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > utilized by connectors at runtime instead of publishing
> this
> > > > info in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > REST API
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was following the existing pattern for exposing runtime
> > > versions
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > connectors, and it did seem like a "monitoring" feature. If
> > that
> > > > > > > > approach is flawed and should be phased out, I think it would
> > be
> > > a
> > > > > > > > good idea to reconsider the REST API rejected alternative.
> > > > > > > > We would need some additional design work to spec out the
> REST
> > > API
> > > > > > > > interface, as I don't have anything in mind currently.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm unclear on whether or not it'll be possible to see this
> > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > via the
> > > > > > > > > GET /connector-plugins/<plugin>/config endpoint
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is room in the API to add recommenders for
> > "key.converter",
> > > > > > > > "value.converter", and "header.converter", but not for
> > transforms
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > predicates, as they include aliases that depend on an actual
> > > > > > > > configuration. We could explicitly say we're going to do
> that,
> > or
> > > > do
> > > > > > > > whatever is convenient during the implementation phase, or
> > leave
> > > it
> > > > > > > > open to be improved later.
> > > > > > > > There will not be any recommenders for ".version" properties
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > > `/config` endpoint, because those recommenders are dynamic
> and
> > > > depend
> > > > > > > > on an actual configuration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5) There are two relevant lines in the KIP: "If a .version
> > > property
> > > > > > > > contains a hard requirement, select the latest installed
> > version
> > > > which
> > > > > > > > satisfies the requirement." and "This configuration is
> > > re-evaluated
> > > > > > > > each time the connector or task are assigned to a new
> worker".
> > I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > call this "eager" upgrade behavior, rather than a "sticky" or
> > > > "lazy"
> > > > > > > > upgrade behavior.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 6) Updated!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Greg
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 9:14 AM Chris Egerton
> > > > <chr...@aiven.io.invalid
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks Greg for updating the KIP, and thanks Snehashis for
> > > > starting
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > work on this originally.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The motivation section makes a pretty convincing case for
> > this
> > > > kind
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > feature. My thoughts are mostly about specific details:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1) I like the support for version ranges (the example
> > > > demonstrating
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > avoid KAFKA-10574 with the header converter was
> particularly
> > > > > > > > entertaining),
> > > > > > > > > but the configuration syntax for the most basic use case of
> > > > > > specifying a
> > > > > > > > > single desired version is pretty counterintuitive. People
> may
> > > get
> > > > > > bitten
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > at least frustrated if they put connector.version=3.8.0 in
> a
> > > > config
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > then version 3.7.5 ends up running. I'd like it if we could
> > > > either
> > > > > > > > > intentionally deviate from Maven ranges when a bare version
> > is
> > > > > > present,
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > separate things out into two properties: foo.version would
> be
> > > the
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > accepted version for the foo plugin, and foo.version.range
> > > would
> > > > use
> > > > > > > > Maven
> > > > > > > > > range syntax. Open to other options too, just providing a
> > > couple
> > > > to
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > ball rolling.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2) Although the current behavior for a worker with an
> invalid
> > > > > > > > > key/value/header converter class specified in its config
> file
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > strange (I was surprised to learn that it wouldn't fail on
> > > > startup),
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > don't see a good reason to deviate from this when an
> invalid
> > > > version
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > specified. Failing startup is drastic and has the potential
> > to
> > > > > > disrupt
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > availability of connectors that would otherwise be able to
> > run
> > > > > > healthily
> > > > > > > > > because they were explicitly configured to use valid
> > converters
> > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the worker defaults.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3) Why are metrics utilized to report information about
> > plugin
> > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > utilized by connectors at runtime instead of publishing
> this
> > > > info in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > REST API? I saw that this was mentioned as a rejected
> > > > alternative,
> > > > > > but I
> > > > > > > > > didn't get a sense of why. It seems like the REST API would
> > be
> > > > > > easier to
> > > > > > > > > access and more intuitive for most users than new metrics.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4) In the "Validation" section it's stated that "Users can
> > use
> > > > these
> > > > > > > > > recommenders to discover the valid plugin classes and
> > versions,
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > requiring an earlier call to GET
> > > > > > > > /connector-plugins?connectorsOnly=false."
> > > > > > > > > I really like the creativity and simplicity of reusing the
> > > > > > recommender
> > > > > > > > > mechanism to expose available versions for plugins via the
> > REST
> > > > API.
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > unclear on whether or not it'll be possible to see this
> > > > information
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > GET /connector-plugins/<plugin>/config endpoint, though.
> It'd
> > > be
> > > > > > great if
> > > > > > > > > this were supported, since we learned in KIP-769 [1] that
> > > people
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > want to be able to see configuration options for connectors
> > and
> > > > their
> > > > > > > > > plugins via some kind of GET endpoint without having to
> > > provide a
> > > > > > > > complete
> > > > > > > > > connector config for validation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 5) In the Maven version range docs, it's stated that "Maven
> > > > picks the
> > > > > > > > > highest version of each project that satisfies all the hard
> > > > > > requirements
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the dependencies on that project." I'm guessing this
> behavior
> > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > retained for Connect; i.e., the highest-possible version of
> > > each
> > > > > > plugin
> > > > > > > > > that satisfies the user-specified version constraints will
> be
> > > > run?
> > > > > > (An
> > > > > > > > > alternative approach could be to have some kind of "sticky"
> > > logic
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > restarts connectors/tasks when their currently-used version
> > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > incompatible with the configured constraints.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 6) (Nit) It'd be nice to add a link to the TestPlugins
> class
> > or
> > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > > > > in its neighborhood to the testing plan; unfamiliar readers
> > > > probably
> > > > > > > > won't
> > > > > > > > > get much out of what's there right now.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] -
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-769%3A+Connect+APIs+to+list+all+connector+plugins+and+retrieve+their+configuration+definitions
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 2:01 PM Snehashis <
> > > > snehashisp1...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That is much appreciated. No complaints on the additional
> > > > scope, I
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > make some time out to work on this once we have approval.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Snehashis
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 9:28 PM Greg Harris
> > > > > > > > <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey Snehashis,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm glad to hear you're still interested in this KIP!
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm happy to let you drive this, and I apologize for
> > > > increasing
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > scope of work so drastically. To make up for that, I'll
> > > > > > volunteer to
> > > > > > > > > > > be the primary PR reviewer to help get this done
> quickly
> > > once
> > > > > > the KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > is approved.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Greg
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 3:51 AM Snehashis <
> > > > > > snehashisp1...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the follow up to my original KIP, I am in
> > > > favour of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > additions made to expand its scope, the addition of
> > range
> > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > specifically make a lot of sense.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Apologies if I have not publicly worked on this KIP
> > for a
> > > > long
> > > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > original work was done when the move to service
> loading
> > > > was in
> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > and I wanted to loop back to this only after that
> work
> > > was
> > > > > > > > completed.
> > > > > > > > > > > Post
> > > > > > > > > > > > its conclusion, I have not been able to take this up
> > due
> > > to
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > priorities. If it's okay with you, I would still like
> > to
> > > > get
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > implemented myself, including the additional scope.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks and regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > Snehashis
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:45 AM Greg Harris
> > > > > > > > > > > <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to reboot the discussion on KIP-891:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-891%3A+Running+multiple+versions+of+Connector+plugins
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've made some changes, most notably:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Specifying versions for all plugins in Connector
> > > > configs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (converters, header converters, transforms, and
> > > > predicates)
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > connectors & tasks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Specifying a range of versions instead of an
> exact
> > > > match
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. New metrics to observe what versions are in-use
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks to Snehashis for the original KIP idea!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 11:49 AM Greg Harris <
> > > > > > > > greg.har...@aiven.io>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Snehashis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the KIP! This is something I've
> > wanted
> > > > for a
> > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know the discussion has gone cold, are you
> still
> > > > > > interested
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pursuing this feature? I'll make time to review
> the
> > > > KIP if
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still accepting comments.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:29 PM Snehashis <
> > > > > > > > > > snehashisp1...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the points Sagar.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Should we update the GET /connectors
> > endpoint
> > > to
> > > > > > > > include the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > version of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the plugin that is running? It could be
> useful
> > to
> > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the plugin or I am assuming it gets returned
> by
> > > the
> > > > > > > > expand=info
> > > > > > > > > > > call?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this is good to have and possible
> future
> > > > > > > > enhancement. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > info will be present in the config of the
> > connector
> > > > if
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specified the version. Otherwise it is the
> latest
> > > > version
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can find out from the connector-plugin
> endpoint.
> > > The
> > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > can be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > introduced to the response of the GET
> /connectors
> > > > > > endpoint
> > > > > > > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > however
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the most ideal way of doing this would be to
> get
> > > the
> > > > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instance of the connector and get the version
> > > > directly
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > there.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > slightly tricky as the connector could be
> running
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > node.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One way to do this would be to persist the
> > version
> > > > > > > > information in
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > status backing store during instantiation of
> the
> > > > > > connector.
> > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some more thought and since the version is part
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > configs if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > provided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and evident otherwise, I have not included it
> in
> > > this
> > > > > > KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) I am not aware of this and hence asking,
> > can 2
> > > > > > > > connectors
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions have the same name? Does the plugin
> > > > isolation
> > > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could have a bearing when using the lifecycle
> > > > > > endpoints for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > connectors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DELETE etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All connectors in a cluster need to have
> uniquire
> > > > > > connector
> > > > > > > > names
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regardless of what version of the plugin the
> > > > connector is
> > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > underneath. This is something enforced by the
> > > connect
> > > > > > runtime
> > > > > > > > > > > itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connect CRUD operations are keyed on the
> > connector
> > > > name
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be an issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Snehashis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 3:16 PM Sagar <
> > > > > > > > sagarmeansoc...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Snehashsih,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. It looks like a very
> useful
> > > > > > feature.
> > > > > > > > Couple
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > small-ish points, let me know what you think:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Should we update the GET /connectors
> > endpoint
> > > to
> > > > > > > > include the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > version of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the plugin that is running? It could be
> useful
> > to
> > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > version of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the plugin or I am assuming it gets returned
> by
> > > the
> > > > > > > > expand=info
> > > > > > > > > > > call?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) I am not aware of this and hence asking,
> > can 2
> > > > > > > > connectors
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions have the same name? Does the plugin
> > > > isolation
> > > > > > > > allow
> > > > > > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could have a bearing when using the lifecycle
> > > > > > endpoints for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > connectors like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DELETE etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sagar.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 2:10 PM Ashwin
> > > > > > > > > > > <apan...@confluent.io.invalid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Snehasis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IIUC (please correct me if I am wrong
> > here),
> > > > what
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > highlighted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > above,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a versioning scheme for a connector config
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > connector
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different versions of a connector plugin).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for not being more precise in my
> > wording
> > > > - I
> > > > > > meant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > registering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions of schema for connector config.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's take the example of a fictional
> > connector
> > > > which
> > > > > > > > uses a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fictional
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AWS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > service.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fictional Connector Config schema
> version:2.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "$schema": "
> > > > > > http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#";,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "type": "object",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "properties": {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "name": {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "type": "string"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > },
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema_version": {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "type": "string"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > },
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "aws_access_key": {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "type": "string"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > },
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "aws_secret_key": {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "type": "string"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > },
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "required": [
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "name",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema_version",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "aws_access_key",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "aws_secret_key"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fictional Connector config schema
> version:3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "$schema": "
> > > > > > http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#";,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "type": "object",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "properties": {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "name": {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "type": "string"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > },
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema_version": {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "type": "string"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > },
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "iam_role": {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "type": "string"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > },
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "required": [
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "name",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema_version",
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "iam_role"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The connector which supports Fictional
> config
> > > > schema
> > > > > > 2.0
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > validate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > access key and secret key.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whereas a connector which supports config
> > with
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate the IAM role.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the alternative which I wanted to
> > > > suggest.
> > > > > > Each
> > > > > > > > > > plugin
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > register the schema versions of connector
> > > config
> > > > > > which it
> > > > > > > > > > > supports.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The plugin paths may be optionally
> different
> > > > i.e we
> > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mandatorily add a new plugin path to
> support
> > a
> > > > new
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > version.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ashwin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 12:47 PM Snehashis
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > snehashisp1...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the input Ashwin.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Can you elaborate on the rejected
> > > > > > alternatives ?
> > > > > > > > > > Suppose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > connector
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > config is versioned and has a schema.
> > Then
> > > a
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > > plugin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (whose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dependencies have not changed) can
> handle
> > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > config
> > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same connector class.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IIUC (please correct me if I am wrong
> > here),
> > > > what
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > highlighted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > above,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a versioning scheme for a connector
> config
> > > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > connector (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different versions of a connector
> plugin).
> > > > That is
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > somewhat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tangential
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem. While it is definitely a useful
> > > > feature to
> > > > > > > > have,
> > > > > > > > > > > like a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > log to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > check what changes were made over time to
> > the
> > > > > > config
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier to do rollbacks, it is not the
> focus
> > > > here.
> > > > > > Here
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > version we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to say what underlying version of the
> > plugin
> > > > > > should the
> > > > > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the connector use. Perhaps it is
> better
> > to
> > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > name of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > parameter from connector.version to
> > > > > > > > > > connector.plugin.version
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plugin.version if it was confusing. wdyt?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Any plans to support assisted
> > migration
> > > > e.g
> > > > > > if a
> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > invokes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "POST
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connector/config?migrate=latest", the
> > > latest
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > __attempts__ to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transform the existing config to the
> > newer
> > > > > > version.
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding a method like "boolean
> > > migrate(Version
> > > > > > > > > > > fromVersion)" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connector interface.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an enhancement we can think of
> > doing
> > > in
> > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > > > > Users can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simply
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a PUT call with the updated config which
> > has
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > number.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The assisted mode could be handy as the
> > user
> > > > does
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > know the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > config but beyond this it does not seem
> to
> > > > justify
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > existence.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Snehashis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:50 AM Ashwin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <apan...@confluent.io.invalid>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Snehasis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a really useful feature and
> > thanks
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > initiating
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I had the following questions -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Can you elaborate on the rejected
> > > > > > alternatives ?
> > > > > > > > > > Suppose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > connector
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > config is versioned and has a schema.
> > Then
> > > a
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > > plugin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (whose
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dependencies have not changed) can
> handle
> > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > config
> > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same connector class.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Any plans to support assisted
> > migration
> > > > e.g
> > > > > > if a
> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > invokes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "POST
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connector/config?migrate=latest", the
> > > latest
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > __attempts__ to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transform the existing config to the
> > newer
> > > > > > version.
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding a method like "boolean
> > > migrate(Version
> > > > > > > > > > > fromVersion)" to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connector interface.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ashwin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 2:27 PM
> > Snehashis <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > snehashisp1...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start a discussion thread
> > on
> > > > > > KIP-891:
> > > > > > > > > > Running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of a connector.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The KIP aims to add the ability for
> the
> > > > connect
> > > > > > > > runtime
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions of a connector.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-891%3A+Running+multiple+versions+of+a+connector
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please take a look and let me know
> what
> > > you
> > > > > > think.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Snehashis Pal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
