Rajiv,
That's probably a very special use case. Note that even in the new consumer
api w/o the generics, the client is only going to get the byte array back.
So, you won't be able to take advantage of reusing the ByteBuffer in the
underlying responses.
Thanks,
Jun
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Rajiv Kurian <ra...@signalfuse.com> wrote:
> I for one use the consumer (Simple Consumer) without any deserialization. I
> just take the ByteBuffer wrap it a preallocated flyweight and use it
> without creating any objects. I'd ideally not have to wrap this logic in a
> deserializer interface. For every one who does do this, it seems like a
> very small step.
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > For (1), yes, but it's easier to make a config change than a code
> change.
> > > If you are using a third party library, one may not be able to make any
> > > code change.
> >
> > Doesn't that assume that all organizations have to already share the
> > same underlying specific data type definition (e.g.,
> > UniversalAvroRecord). If not, then wouldn't they have to anyway make a
> > code change anyway to use the shared definition (since that is
> > required in the parameterized type of the producerrecord and
> > producer)? And if they have already made the change to use the said
> > shared definition then you could just as well have the serializer of
> > UniversalAvroRecord configured in your application config and have
> > that replaced if you wish by some other implementation of a serializer
> > of UniversalAvroRecord (again via config).
> >
> > > For (2), it's just that if most consumers always do deserialization
> after
> > > getting the raw bytes, perhaps it would be better to have these two
> steps
> > > integrated.
> >
> > True, but it is just a marginal and very obvious step that shouldn't
> > surprise any user.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Joel
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jun
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The issue with a separate ser/deser library is that if it's not
> part
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > client API, (1) users may not use it or (2) different users may use
> > it in
> > > > > different ways. For example, you can imagine that two Avro
> > > > implementations
> > > > > have different ways of instantiation (since it's not enforced by
> the
> > > > client
> > > > > API). This makes sharing such kind of libraries harder.
> > > >
> > > > That is true - but that is also the point I think and it seems
> > > > irrelevant to whether it is built-in to the producer's config or
> > > > plugged in outside at the application-level. i.e., users will not use
> > > > a common implementation if it does not fit their requirements. If a
> > > > well-designed, full-featured and correctly implemented avro-or-other
> > > > serializer/deserializer is made available there is no reason why that
> > > > cannot be shared by different applications.
> > > >
> > > > > As for reason about the data types, take an example of the consumer
> > > > > application. It needs to deal with objects at some point. So the
> > earlier
> > > > > that type information is revealed, the clearer it is to the
> > application.
> > > >
> > > > Again for this, the only additional step is a call to deserialize. At
> > > > some level the application _has_ to deal with the specific data type
> > > > and it is thus reasonable to require that a consumed byte array needs
> > > > to be deserialized to that type before being used.
> > > >
> > > > I suppose I don't see much benefit in pushing this into the core API
> > > > of the producer at the expense of making these changes to the API.
> At
> > > > the same time, I should be clear that I don't think the proposal is
> in
> > > > any way unreasonable which is why I'm definitely not opposed to it,
> > > > but I'm also not convinced that it is necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Joel
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Re: pushing complexity of dealing with objects: we're talking
> about
> > > > > > just a call to a serialize method to convert the object to a byte
> > > > > > array right? Or is there more to it? (To me) that seems less
> > > > > > cumbersome than having to interact with parameterized types.
> > Actually,
> > > > > > can you explain more clearly what you mean by <q>reason about
> what
> > > > > > type of data is being sent</q> in your original email? I have
> some
> > > > > > notion of what that means but it is a bit vague and you might
> have
> > > > > > meant something else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 09:15:19AM -0800, Jun Rao wrote:
> > > > > > > Joel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, the raw bytes interface is simpler than the Generic api.
> > > > However, it
> > > > > > > just pushes the complexity of dealing with the objects to the
> > > > > > application.
> > > > > > > We also thought about the layered approach. However, this may
> > > > confuse the
> > > > > > > users since there is no single entry point and it's not clear
> > which
> > > > > > layer a
> > > > > > > user should be using.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Joel Koshy <
> jjkosh...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > makes it hard to reason about what type of data is being
> > sent to
> > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > also makes it hard to share an implementation of the
> > serializer.
> > > > For
> > > > > > > > > example, to support Avro, the serialization logic could be
> > quite
> > > > > > involved
> > > > > > > > > since it might need to register the Avro schema in some
> > remote
> > > > > > registry
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > maintain a schema cache locally, etc. Without a
> serialization
> > > > api,
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > impossible to share such an implementation so that people
> can
> > > > easily
> > > > > > > > reuse.
> > > > > > > > > We sort of overlooked this implication during the initial
> > > > discussion
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > producer api.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing this up and the patch. My take on this
> is
> > that
> > > > > > > > any reasoning about the data itself is more appropriately
> > handled
> > > > > > > > outside of the core producer API. FWIW, I don't think this
> was
> > > > > > > > _overlooked_ during the initial discussion of the producer
> API
> > > > > > > > (especially since it was a significant change from the old
> > > > producer).
> > > > > > > > IIRC we believed at the time that there is elegance and
> > > > flexibility in
> > > > > > > > a simple API that deals with raw bytes. I think it is more
> > > > accurate to
> > > > > > > > say that this is a reversal of opinion for some (which is
> > fine) but
> > > > > > > > personally I'm still in the old camp :) i.e., I really like
> the
> > > > > > > > simplicity of the current 0.8.2 producer API and find
> > parameterized
> > > > > > > > types/generics to be distracting and annoying; and IMO any
> > > > > > > > data-specific handling is better absorbed at a higher-level
> > than
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > core Kafka APIs - possibly by a (very thin) wrapper producer
> > > > library.
> > > > > > > > I don't quite see why it is difficult to share different
> > wrapper
> > > > > > > > implementations; or even ser-de libraries for that matter
> that
> > > > people
> > > > > > > > can invoke before sending to/reading from Kafka.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That said I'm not opposed to the change - it's just that I
> > prefer
> > > > > > > > what's currently there. So I'm +0 on the proposal.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Joel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 05:58:50PM -0800, Jun Rao wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi, Everyone,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to start a discussion on whether it makes sense to
> > add
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > serializer api back to the new java producer. Currently,
> the
> > new
> > > > java
> > > > > > > > > producer takes a byte array for both the key and the value.
> > While
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > api
> > > > > > > > > is simple, it pushes the serialization logic into the
> > > > application.
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > makes it hard to reason about what type of data is being
> > sent to
> > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > also makes it hard to share an implementation of the
> > serializer.
> > > > For
> > > > > > > > > example, to support Avro, the serialization logic could be
> > quite
> > > > > > involved
> > > > > > > > > since it might need to register the Avro schema in some
> > remote
> > > > > > registry
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > maintain a schema cache locally, etc. Without a
> serialization
> > > > api,
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > impossible to share such an implementation so that people
> can
> > > > easily
> > > > > > > > reuse.
> > > > > > > > > We sort of overlooked this implication during the initial
> > > > discussion
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > producer api.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, I'd like to propose an api change to the new producer
> by
> > > > adding
> > > > > > back
> > > > > > > > > the serializer api similar to what we had in the old
> > producer.
> > > > > > Specially,
> > > > > > > > > the proposed api changes are the following.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > First, we change KafkaProducer to take generic types K and
> V
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > and the value, respectively.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > public class KafkaProducer<K,V> implements Producer<K,V> {
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > public Future<RecordMetadata> send(ProducerRecord<K,V>
> > > > record,
> > > > > > > > Callback
> > > > > > > > > callback);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > public Future<RecordMetadata> send(ProducerRecord<K,V>
> > > > record);
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Second, we add two new configs, one for the key serializer
> > and
> > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the value serializer. Both serializers will default to the
> > byte
> > > > array
> > > > > > > > > implementation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > public class ProducerConfig extends AbstractConfig {
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > .define(KEY_SERIALIZER_CLASS_CONFIG, Type.CLASS,
> > > > > > > > > "org.apache.kafka.clients.producer.ByteArraySerializer",
> > > > > > Importance.HIGH,
> > > > > > > > > KEY_SERIALIZER_CLASS_DOC)
> > > > > > > > > .define(VALUE_SERIALIZER_CLASS_CONFIG, Type.CLASS,
> > > > > > > > > "org.apache.kafka.clients.producer.ByteArraySerializer",
> > > > > > Importance.HIGH,
> > > > > > > > > VALUE_SERIALIZER_CLASS_DOC);
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Both serializers will implement the following interface.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > public interface Serializer<T> extends Configurable {
> > > > > > > > > public byte[] serialize(String topic, T data, boolean
> > isKey);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > public void close();
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is more or less the same as what's in the old
> producer.
> > The
> > > > > > slight
> > > > > > > > > differences are (1) the serializer now only requires a
> > > > parameter-less
> > > > > > > > > constructor; (2) the serializer has a configure() and a
> > close()
> > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > initialization and cleanup, respectively; (3) the
> serialize()
> > > > method
> > > > > > > > > additionally takes the topic and an isKey indicator, both
> of
> > > > which
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > useful for things like schema registration.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The detailed changes are included in KAFKA-1797. For
> > > > completeness, I
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > made the corresponding changes for the new java consumer
> api
> > as
> > > > well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Note that the proposed api changes are incompatible with
> > what's
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > 0.8.2 branch. However, if those api changes are beneficial,
> > it's
> > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > > better to include them now in the 0.8.2 release, rather
> than
> > > > later.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to discuss mainly two things in this thread.
> > > > > > > > > 1. Do people feel that the proposed api changes are
> > reasonable?
> > > > > > > > > 2. Are there any concerns of including the api changes in
> the
> > > > 0.8.2
> > > > > > final
> > > > > > > > > release?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jun
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Joel
> > > >
> >
> >
>
