Hey Jun, Good points.
I totally agree that the versioning needs to cover both format and behavior if the behavior change is incompatible. I kind of agree about the stable/unstable stuff. What I think this means is not that we would ever evolve the protocol without changing the version, but rather that we would drop support for older versions quicker. On one hand that makes sense and it is often a high bar to get things right the first time. On the other hand I think in practice the set of people who interact with the protocol is often different from the end user. So the end-user experience may still be "hey my code just broke" because some client they use relied on an unstable protocol unbeknownst to them. But I think all that means is that we should be thoughtful about removing support for old protocol versions even if they were marked unstable. Does anyone else have feedback or thoughts on the KIP stuff? Objections? Thoughts on structure? -Jay On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > Jay, > > Thanks for bringing this up. Yes, we should increase the level of awareness > of compatibility. > > For 1 and 2, they probably should include any functional change. For > example, even if there is no change in the binary data format, but the > interpretation is changed, we should consider this as a binary format > change and bump up the version number. > > 3. Having a wider discussion on api/protocol/data changes in the mailing > list seems like a good idea. > > 7. It might be good to also document api/protocol/data format that are > considered stable (or unstable). For example, in 0.8.2 release, we will > have a few new protocols (e.g. HeartBeat) for the development of the new > consumer. Those new protocols probably shouldn't be considered stable until > the new consumer is more fully developed. > > Thanks, > > Jun > > > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Hey guys, > > > > We had a bit of a compatibility slip-up in 0.8.2 with the offset commit > > stuff. We caught this one before the final release so it's not too bad. > But > > I do think it kind of points to an area we could do better. > > > > One piece of feedback we have gotten from going out and talking to users > is > > that compatibility is really, really important to them. Kafka is getting > > deployed in big environments where the clients are embedded in lots of > > applications and any kind of incompatibility is a huge pain for people > > using it and generally makes upgrade difficult or impossible. > > > > In practice what I think this means for development is a lot more > pressure > > to really think about the public interfaces we are making and try our > best > > to get them right. This can be hard sometimes as changes come in patches > > and it is hard to follow every single rb with enough diligence to know. > > > > Compatibility really means a couple things: > > 1. Protocol changes > > 2. Binary data format changes > > 3. Changes in public apis in the clients > > 4. Configs > > 5. Metric names > > 6. Command line tools > > > > I think 1-2 are critical. 3 is very important. And 4, 5 and 6 are pretty > > important but not critical. > > > > One thing this implies is that we are really going to have to do a good > job > > of thinking about apis and use cases. You can definitely see a number of > > places in the old clients and in a couple of the protocols where enough > > care was not given to thinking things through. Some of those were from > long > > long ago, but we should really try to avoid adding to that set because > > increasingly we will have to carry around these mistakes for a long time. > > > > Here are a few things I thought we could do that might help us get better > > in this area: > > > > 1. Technically we are just in a really bad place with the protocol > because > > it is defined twice--once in the old scala request objects, and once in > the > > new protocol format for the clients. This makes changes massively > painful. > > The good news is that the new request definition DSL was intended to make > > adding new protocol versions a lot easier and clearer. It will also make > it > > a lot more obvious when the protocol is changed since you will be > checking > > in or reviewing a change to Protocol.java. Getting the server moved over > to > > the new request objects and protocol definition will be a bit of a slog > but > > it will really help here I think. > > > > 2. We need to get some testing in place on cross-version compatibility. > > This is work and no tests here will be perfect, but I suspect with some > > effort we could catch a lot of things. > > > > 3. I was also thinking it might be worth it to get a little bit more > formal > > about the review and discussion process for things which will have impact > > to these public areas to ensure we end up with something we are happy > with. > > Python has a PIP process (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0257/) by > > which major changes are made, and it might be worth it for us to do a > > similar thing. We have essentially been doing this already--major changes > > almost always have an associated wiki, but I think just getting a little > > more rigorous might be good. The idea would be to just call out these > wikis > > as official proposals and do a full Apache discuss/vote thread for these > > important change. We would use these for big features (security, log > > compaction, etc) as well as for small changes that introduce or change a > > public api/config/etc. This is a little heavier weight, but I think it is > > really just critical that we get these things right and this would be a > way > > to call out this kind of change so that everyone would take the time to > > look at them. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -Jay > > >
