another big plus of headers in the protocol is that it would enable rapid iteration on ideas outside of core kafka and would reduce the number of future wire format changes required.
a lot of what is currently a KIP represents use cases that are not 100% relevant to all users, and some of them require rather invasive wire protocol changes. a thing a good recent example of this is kip-98. tx-utilizing traffic is expected to be a very small fraction of total traffic and yet the changes are invasive. every such wire format change translates into painful and slow adoption of new versions. i think a lot of functionality currently in KIPs could be "spun out" and implemented as opt-in plugins transmitting data over headers. this would keep the core wire format stable(r), core codebase smaller, and avoid the "burden of proof" thats sometimes required to prove a certain feature is useful enough for a wide-enough audience to warrant a wire format change and code complexity additions. (to be clear - kip-98 goes beyond "mere" wire format changes and im not saying it could have been completely done with headers, but exactly-once delivery certainly could) On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:24 AM, radai <radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "For use cases within an organization, one could always use other > > approaches such as company-wise containers" > > this is what linkedin has traditionally done but there are now cases > (read > > - topics) where this is not acceptable. this makes headers useful even > > within single orgs for cases where one-container-fits-all cannot apply. > > > > as for the particular use cases listed, i dont want this to devolve to a > > discussion of particular use cases - i think its enough that some of them > > I think a main point of contention is that: We identified few > use-cases where headers are useful, do we want Kafka to be a system > that supports those use-cases? > > For example, Jun said: > "Not sure how widely useful record-level lineage is though since the > overhead could > be significant." > > We know NiFi supports record level lineage. I don't think it was > developed for lols, I think it is safe to assume that the NSA needed > that functionality. We also know that certain financial institutes > need to track tampering with records at a record level and there are > federal regulations that absolutely require this. They also need to > prove that routing apps that "touches" the messages and either reads > or updates headers couldn't have possibly modified the payload itself. > They use record level encryption to do that - apps can read and > (sometimes) modify headers but can't touch the payload. > > We can totally say "those are corner cases and not worth adding > headers to Kafka for", they should use a different pubsub message for > that (Nifi or one of the other 1000 that cater specifically to the > financial industry). > > But this gets us into a catch 22: > If we discuss a specific use-case, someone can always say it isn't > interesting enough for Kafka. If we discuss more general trends, > others can say "well, we are not sure any of them really needs headers > specifically. This is just hand waving and not interesting.". > > I think discussing use-cases in specifics is super important to decide > implementation details for headers (my use-cases lean toward numerical > keys with namespaces and object values, others differ), but I think we > need to answer the general "Are we going to have headers" question > first. > > I'd love to hear from the other committers in the discussion: > What would it take to convince you that headers in Kafka are a good > idea in general, so we can move ahead and try to agree on the details? > > I feel like we keep moving the goal posts and this is truly exhausting. > > For the record, I mildly support adding headers to Kafka (+0.5?). > The community can continue to find workarounds to the issue and there > are some benefits to keeping the message format and clients simpler. > But I see the usefulness of headers to many use-cases and if we can > find a good and generally useful way to add it to Kafka, it will make > Kafka easier to use for many - worthy goal in my eyes. > > > are interesting/feasible, but: > > A+B. i think there are use cases for polyglot topics. especially if kafka > > is being used to "trunk" something else. > > D. multiple topics would make it harder to write portable consumer code. > > partition remapping would mess with locality of consumption guarantees. > > E+F. a use case I see for lineage/metadata is billing/chargeback. for > that > > use case it is not enough to simply record the point of origin, but every > > replication stop (think mirror maker) must also add a record to form a > > "transit log". > > > > as for stream processing on top of kafka - i know samza has a metadata > map > > which they carry around in addition to user values. headers are the > perfect > > fit for these things. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > >> Hi, Michael, > >> > >> In order to answer the first two questions, it would be helpful if we > could > >> identify 1 or 2 strong use cases for headers in the space for > third-party > >> vendors. For use cases within an organization, one could always use > other > >> approaches such as company-wise containers to get around w/o headers. I > >> went through the use cases in the KIP and in Radai's wiki ( > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/A+ > Case+for+Kafka+Headers > >> ). > >> The following are the ones that that I understand and could be in the > >> third-party use case category. > >> > >> A. content-type > >> It seems that in general, content-type should be set at the topic level. > >> Not sure if mixing messages with different content types should be > >> encouraged. > >> > >> B. schema id > >> Since the value is mostly useless without schema id, it seems that > storing > >> the schema id together with serialized bytes in the value is better? > >> > >> C. per message encryption > >> One drawback of this approach is that this significantly reduce the > >> effectiveness of compression, which happens on a set of serialized > >> messages. An alternative is to enable SSL for wire encryption and rely > on > >> the storage system (e.g. LUKS) for at rest encryption. > >> > >> D. cluster ID for mirroring across Kafka clusters > >> This is actually interesting. Today, to avoid introducing cycles when > doing > >> mirroring across data centers, one would either have to set up two Kafka > >> clusters (a local and an aggregate) per data center or rename topics. > >> Neither is ideal. With headers, the producer could tag each message with > >> the producing cluster ID in the header. MirrorMaker could then avoid > >> mirroring messages to a cluster if they are tagged with the same cluster > >> id. > >> > >> However, an alternative approach is to introduce sth like hierarchical > >> topic and store messages from different clusters in different partitions > >> under the same topic. This approach avoids filtering out unneeded data > and > >> makes offset preserving easier to support. It may make compaction > trickier > >> though since the same key may show up in different partitions. > >> > >> E. record-level lineage > >> For example, a source connector could store in the message the metadata > >> (e.g. UUID) of the source record. Similarly, if a stream job transforms > >> messages from topic A to topic B, the library could include the source > >> message offset in each of the transformed message in the header. Not > sure > >> how widely useful record-level lineage is though since the overhead > could > >> be significant. > >> > >> F. auditing metadata > >> We could put things like clientId/host/user in the header in each > message > >> for auditing. These metadata are really at the producer level though. > So, a > >> more efficient way is to only include a "producerId" per message and > send > >> the producerId -> metadata mapping independently. KIP-98 is actually > >> proposing including such a producerId natively in the message. > >> > >> So, overall, I not sure that I am fully convinced of the strong > third-party > >> use cases of headers yet. Perhaps we could discuss a bit more to make > one > >> or two really convincing use cases. > >> > >> Another orthogonal question is whether header should be exposed in > stream > >> processing systems such Kafka stream, Samza, and Spark streaming. > >> Currently, those systems just deal with key/value pairs. Should we > expose a > >> third thing header there too or somehow map header to key or value? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jun > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Michael Pearce <michael.pea...@ig.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > I assume, that after a period of a week, that there is no concerns now > >> > with points 1, and 2 and now we have agreement that headers are useful > >> and > >> > needed in Kafka. As such if put to a KIP vote, this wouldn’t be a > reason > >> to > >> > reject. > >> > > >> > @ > >> > Ignacio on point 4). > >> > I think for purpose of getting this KIP moving past this, we can state > >> the > >> > key will be a 4 bytes space that can will be naturally interpreted as > an > >> > Int32 (if namespacing is later wanted you can easily split this into > two > >> > int16 spaces), from the wire protocol implementation this makes no > >> > difference I don’t believe. Is this reasonable to all? > >> > > >> > On 5) as per point 4 therefor happy we keep with 32 bits. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 18/11/2016, 20:34, "ignacio.so...@gmail.com on behalf of Ignacio > >> > Solis" <ignacio.so...@gmail.com on behalf of iso...@igso.net> wrote: > >> > > >> > Summary: > >> > > >> > 3) Yes - Header value as byte[] > >> > > >> > 4a) Int,Int - No > >> > 4b) Int - Yes > >> > 4c) String - Reluctant maybe > >> > > >> > 5) I believe the header system should take a single int. I think > >> > 32bits is > >> > a good size, if you want to interpret this as to 16bit numbers in > the > >> > layer > >> > above go right ahead. If somebody wants to argue for 16 bits or > 64 > >> > bits of > >> > header key space I would listen. > >> > > >> > > >> > Discussion: > >> > Dividing the key space into sub_key_1 and sub_key_2 makes no > sense to > >> > me at > >> > this layer. Are we going to start providing APIs to get all the > >> > sub_key_1s? or all the sub_key_2s? If there is no distinguishing > >> > functions > >> > that are applied to each one then they should be a single value. > At > >> > this > >> > layer all we're doing is equality. > >> > If the above layer wants to interpret this as 2, 3 or more values > >> > that's a > >> > different question. I personally think it's all one keyspace > that is > >> > getting assigned using some structure, but if you want to > sub-assign > >> > parts > >> > of it then that's fine. > >> > > >> > The same discussion applies to strings. If somebody argued for > >> > strings, > >> > would we be arguing to divide the strings with dots ('.') as a > >> > requirement? > >> > Would we want them to give us the different name segments > separately? > >> > Would we be performing any actions on this key other than > matching? > >> > > >> > Nacho > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Michael Pearce < > >> michael.pea...@ig.com > >> > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > #jay #jun any concerns on 1 and 2 still? > >> > > > >> > > @all > >> > > To get this moving along a bit more I'd also like to ask to get > >> > clarity on > >> > > the below last points: > >> > > > >> > > 3) I believe we're all roughly happy with the header value > being a > >> > byte[]? > >> > > > >> > > 4) I believe consensus has been for an namespace based int > approach > >> > > {int,int} for the key. Any objections if this is what we go > with? > >> > > > >> > > 5) as we have if assumption in (4) is correct, {int,int} keys. > >> > > Should both int's be int16 or int32? > >> > > I'm for them being int16(2 bytes) as combined is space of > 4bytes as > >> > per > >> > > original and gives plenty of combinations for the foreseeable, > and > >> > keeps > >> > > the overhead small. > >> > > > >> > > Do we see any benefit in another kip call to discuss these at > all? > >> > > > >> > > Cheers > >> > > Mike > >> > > ________________________________________ > >> > > From: K Burstev <k.burs...@yandex.com> > >> > > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 7:07:07 AM > >> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > >> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-82 - Add Record Headers > >> > > > >> > > For what it is worth also i agree. As a user: > >> > > > >> > > 1) Yes - Headers are worthwhile > >> > > 2) Yes - Headers should be a top level option > >> > > > >> > > 14.11.2016, 21:15, "Ignacio Solis" <iso...@igso.net>: > >> > > > 1) Yes - Headers are worthwhile > >> > > > 2) Yes - Headers should be a top level option > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Michael Pearce < > >> > michael.pea...@ig.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> Hi Roger, > >> > > >> > >> > > >> The kip details/examples the original proposal for key > spacing > >> , > >> > not > >> > > the > >> > > >> new mentioned as per discussion namespace idea. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> We will need to update the kip, when we get agreement this > is a > >> > better > >> > > >> approach (which seems to be the case if I have understood > the > >> > general > >> > > >> feeling in the conversation) > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Re the variable ints, at very early stage we did think about > >> > this. I > >> > > think > >> > > >> the added complexity for the saving isn't worth it. I'd > rather > >> go > >> > > with, if > >> > > >> we want to reduce overheads and size int16 (2bytes) keys as > it > >> > keeps it > >> > > >> simple. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On the note of no headers, there is as per the kip as we > use an > >> > > attribute > >> > > >> bit to denote if headers are present or not as such > provides a > >> > zero > >> > > >> overhead currently if headers are not used. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I think as radai mentions would be good first if we can get > >> > clarity if > >> > > do > >> > > >> we now have general consensus that (1) headers are > worthwhile > >> and > >> > > useful, > >> > > >> and (2) we want it as a top level entity. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Just to state the obvious i believe (1) headers are > worthwhile > >> > and (2) > >> > > >> agree as a top level entity. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Cheers > >> > > >> Mike > >> > > >> ________________________________________ > >> > > >> From: Roger Hoover <roger.hoo...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 9:10:47 PM > >> > > >> To: dev@kafka.apache.org > >> > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-82 - Add Record Headers > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Sorry for going a little in the weeds but thanks for the > >> replies > >> > > regarding > >> > > >> varint. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Agreed that a prefix and {int, int} can be the same. It > doesn't > >> > look > >> > > like > >> > > >> that's what the KIP is saying the "Open" section. The > example > >> > shows > >> > > >> 2100001 > >> > > >> for New Relic and 210002 for App Dynamics implying that the > New > >> > Relic > >> > > >> organization will have only a single header id to work > with. Or > >> > is > >> > > 2100001 > >> > > >> a prefix? The main point of a namespace or prefix is to > reduce > >> > the > >> > > >> overhead of config mapping or registration depending on how > >> > > >> namespaces/prefixes are managed. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Would love to hear more feedback on the higher-level > questions > >> > > though... > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Cheers, > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Roger > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:38 AM, radai < > >> > radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > I think this discussion is getting a bit into the weeds on > >> > technical > >> > > >> > implementation details. > >> > > >> > I'd liek to step back a minute and try and establish > where we > >> > are in > >> > > the > >> > > >> > larger picture: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > (re-wording nacho's last paragraph) > >> > > >> > 1. are we all in agreement that headers are a worthwhile > and > >> > useful > >> > > >> > addition to have? this was contested early on > >> > > >> > 2. are we all in agreement on headers as top level entity > vs > >> > headers > >> > > >> > squirreled-away in V? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > if there are still concerns around these #2 points (#jay? > >> > #jun?)? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > (and now back to our normal programming ...) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > varints are nice. having said that, its adding complexity > >> (see > >> > > >> > https://github.com/addthis/stream-lib/blob/master/src/ > >> > > >> > main/java/com/clearspring/analytics/util/Varint.java > >> > > >> > as 1st google result) and would require anyone writing > other > >> > clients > >> > > (C? > >> > > >> > Python? Go? Bash? ;-) ) to get/implement the same, and for > >> > relatively > >> > > >> > little gain (int vs string is order of magnitude, this > isnt). > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > int namespacing vs {int, int} namespacing are basically > the > >> > same > >> > > thing - > >> > > >> > youre just namespacing an int64 and giving people while > 2^32 > >> > ranges > >> > > at a > >> > > >> > time. the part i like about this is letting people have a > >> large > >> > > swath of > >> > > >> > numbers with one registration so they dont have to come > back > >> > for > >> > > every > >> > > >> > single plugin/header they want to "reserve". > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Roger Hoover < > >> > > roger.hoo...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Since some of the debate has been about overhead + > >> > performance, I'm > >> > > >> > > wondering if we have considered a varint encoding ( > >> > > >> > > https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/ > >> > > encoding#varints) > >> > > >> > for > >> > > >> > > the header length field (int32 in the proposal) and for > >> > header > >> > > ids? If > >> > > >> > you > >> > > >> > > don't use headers, the overhead would be a single byte > and > >> > for each > >> > > >> > header > >> > > >> > > id < 128 would also need only a single byte? > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 6:43 AM, radai < > >> > radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > @magnus - and very dangerous (youre essentially > >> > downloading and > >> > > >> > executing > >> > > >> > > > arbitrary code off the internet on your servers ... > bad > >> > idea > >> > > without > >> > > >> a > >> > > >> > > > sandbox, even with) > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > as for it being a purely administrative task - i > >> disagree. > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > i wish it would, really, because then my earlier > point on > >> > the > >> > > >> > complexity > >> > > >> > > of > >> > > >> > > > the remapping process would be invalid, but at > linkedin, > >> > for > >> > > example, > >> > > >> > we > >> > > >> > > > (the team im in) run kafka as a service. we dont > really > >> > know > >> > > what our > >> > > >> > > users > >> > > >> > > > (developing applications that use kafka) are up to at > any > >> > given > >> > > >> moment. > >> > > >> > > it > >> > > >> > > > is very possible (given the existance of headers and a > >> > > corresponding > >> > > >> > > plugin > >> > > >> > > > ecosystem) for some application to "equip" their > >> producers > >> > and > >> > > >> > consumers > >> > > >> > > > with the required plugin without us knowing. i dont > mean > >> > to imply > >> > > >> thats > >> > > >> > > > bad, i just want to make the point that its not as > simple > >> > > keeping it > >> > > >> in > >> > > >> > > > sync across a large-enough organization. > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Magnus Edenhill < > >> > > mag...@edenhill.se> > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > I think there is a piece missing in the Strings > >> > discussion, > >> > > where > >> > > >> > > > > pro-Stringers > >> > > >> > > > > reason that by providing unique string identifiers > for > >> > each > >> > > header > >> > > >> > > > > everything will just > >> > > >> > > > > magically work for all parts of the stream pipeline. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > But the strings dont mean anything by themselves, > and > >> > while we > >> > > >> could > >> > > >> > > > > probably envision > >> > > >> > > > > some auto plugin loader that downloads, compiles, > links > >> > and > >> > > runs > >> > > >> > > plugins > >> > > >> > > > > on-demand > >> > > >> > > > > as soon as they're seen by a consumer, I dont really > >> see > >> > a > >> > > use-case > >> > > >> > for > >> > > >> > > > > something > >> > > >> > > > > so dynamic (and fragile) in practice. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > In the real world an application will be configured > >> with > >> > a set > >> > > of > >> > > >> > > plugins > >> > > >> > > > > to either add (producer) > >> > > >> > > > > or read (consumer) headers. > >> > > >> > > > > This is an administrative task based on what > features a > >> > client > >> > > >> > > > > needs/provides and results in > >> > > >> > > > > some sort of configuration to enable and configure > the > >> > desired > >> > > >> > plugins. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > Since this needs to be kept somewhat in sync across > an > >> > > organisation > >> > > >> > > > (there > >> > > >> > > > > is no point in having producers > >> > > >> > > > > add headers no consumers will read, and vice versa), > >> the > >> > added > >> > > >> > > complexity > >> > > >> > > > > of assigning an id namespace > >> > > >> > > > > for each plugin as it is being configured should be > >> > tolerable. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > /Magnus > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > 2016-11-09 13:06 GMT+01:00 Michael Pearce < > >> > > michael.pea...@ig.com>: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > Just following/catching up on what seems to be an > >> > active > >> > > night :) > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > @Radai sorry if it may seem obvious but what does > MD > >> > stand > >> > > for? > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > My take on String vs Int: > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > I will state first I am pro Int (16 or 32). > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > I do though playing devils advocate see a big plus > >> > with the > >> > > >> > argument > >> > > >> > > of > >> > > >> > > > > > String keys, this is around integrating into an > >> > existing > >> > > >> > eco-system. > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > As many other systems use String based headers > >> (Flume, > >> > JMS) > >> > > it > >> > > >> > makes > >> > > >> > > > it > >> > > >> > > > > > much easier for these to be > incorporated/integrated > >> > into. > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > How with Int based headers could we provide a > >> > way/guidence to > >> > > >> make > >> > > >> > > this > >> > > >> > > > > > integration simple / easy with transition flows > over > >> to > >> > > kafka? > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > * tough luck buddy you're on your own > >> > > >> > > > > > * simply hash the string into int code and hope > for > >> no > >> > > collisions > >> > > >> > > (how > >> > > >> > > > to > >> > > >> > > > > > convert back though?) > >> > > >> > > > > > * http2 style as mentioned by nacho. > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > cheers, > >> > > >> > > > > > Mike > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > ________________________________________ > >> > > >> > > > > > From: radai <radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 8:12 AM > >> > > >> > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > >> > > >> > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-82 - Add Record Headers > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > thinking about it some more, the best way to > transmit > >> > the > >> > > header > >> > > >> > > > > remapping > >> > > >> > > > > > data to consumers would be to put it in the MD > >> response > >> > > payload, > >> > > >> so > >> > > >> > > > maybe > >> > > >> > > > > > it should be discussed now. > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:09 AM, radai < > >> > > >> radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > im not opposed to the idea of namespace mapping. > >> all > >> > im > >> > > saying > >> > > >> is > >> > > >> > > > that > >> > > >> > > > > > its > >> > > >> > > > > > > not part of the "mvp" and, since it requires no > >> wire > >> > format > >> > > >> > change, > >> > > >> > > > can > >> > > >> > > > > > > always be added later. > >> > > >> > > > > > > also, its not as simple as just configuring MM > to > >> do > >> > the > >> > > >> > transform: > >> > > >> > > > > lets > >> > > >> > > > > > > say i've implemented large message support as > >> > {666,1} and > >> > > on > >> > > >> some > >> > > >> > > > > mirror > >> > > >> > > > > > > target cluster its been remapped to {999,1}. the > >> > consumer > >> > > >> plugin > >> > > >> > > code > >> > > >> > > > > > would > >> > > >> > > > > > > also need to be told to look for the large > message > >> > "part X > >> > > of > >> > > >> Y" > >> > > >> > > > header > >> > > >> > > > > > > under {999,1}. doable, but tricky. > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Gwen Shapira < > >> > > >> g...@confluent.io > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> While you can do whatever you want with a > >> namespace > >> > and > >> > > your > >> > > >> > code, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> what I'd expect is for each app to namespaces > >> > > configurable... > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> So if I accidentally used 666 for my HR > >> department, > >> > and > >> > > still > >> > > >> > want > >> > > >> > > > to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> run RadaiApp, I can config "namespace=42" for > >> > RadaiApp and > >> > > >> > > > everything > >> > > >> > > > > > >> will look normal. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> This means you only need to sync usage inside > your > >> > own > >> > > >> > > organization. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Still hard, but somewhat easier than syncing > with > >> > the > >> > > entire > >> > > >> > > world. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:07 PM, radai < > >> > > >> > > radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > and we can start with {namespace, id} and no > >> > re-mapping > >> > > >> > support > >> > > >> > > > and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> always > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > add it later on if/when collisions actually > >> > happen (i > >> > > dont > >> > > >> > think > >> > > >> > > > > > they'd > >> > > >> > > > > > >> be > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > a problem). > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > every interested party (so orgs or > individuals) > >> > could > >> > > then > >> > > >> > > > register > >> > > >> > > > > a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > prefix (0 = reserved, 1 = confluent ... 666 > = me > >> > :-) ) > >> > > and > >> > > >> do > >> > > >> > > > > whatever > >> > > >> > > > > > >> with > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > the 2nd ID - so once linkedin registers, say > 3, > >> > then > >> > > >> linkedin > >> > > >> > > devs > >> > > >> > > > > are > >> > > >> > > > > > >> free > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > to use {3, *} with a reasonable expectation > to > >> to > >> > > collide > >> > > >> with > >> > > >> > > > > > anything > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > else. further partitioning of that * becomes > >> > linkedin's > >> > > >> > problem, > >> > > >> > > > but > >> > > >> > > > > > the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > "upstream registration" of a namespace only > has > >> to > >> > > happen > >> > > >> > once. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:03 PM, James Cheng < > >> > > >> > > wushuja...@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Nov 8, 2016, at 5:54 PM, Gwen Shapira < > >> > > >> > g...@confluent.io> > >> > > >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Thank you so much for this clear and fair > >> > summary of > >> > > the > >> > > >> > > > > arguments. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I'm in favor of ints. Not a deal-breaker, > but > >> > in > >> > > favor. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Even more in favor of Magnus's > decentralized > >> > > suggestion > >> > > >> > with > >> > > >> > > > > > Roger's > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > tweak: add a namespace for headers. This > will > >> > allow > >> > > each > >> > > >> > app > >> > > >> > > to > >> > > >> > > > > > just > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > use whatever IDs it wants internally, and > >> then > >> > let > >> > > the > >> > > >> > admin > >> > > >> > > > > > >> deploying > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the app figure out an available namespace > ID > >> > for the > >> > > app > >> > > >> to > >> > > >> > > > live > >> > > >> > > > > > in. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > So io.confluent.schema-registry can be > >> > namespace > >> > > 0x01 on > >> > > >> my > >> > > >> > > > > > >> deployment > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > and 0x57 on yours, and the poor guys > >> > developing the > >> > > app > >> > > >> > don't > >> > > >> > > > > need > >> > > >> > > > > > to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > worry about that. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Gwen, if I understand your example right, an > >> > > application > >> > > >> > > deployer > >> > > >> > > > > > might > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> decide to use 0x01 in one deployment, and > that > >> > means > >> > > that > >> > > >> > once > >> > > >> > > > the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> message > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> is written into the broker, it will be > saved on > >> > the > >> > > broker > >> > > >> > with > >> > > >> > > > > that > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> specific namespace (0x01). > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> If you were to mirror that message into > another > >> > > cluster, > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> > > 0x01 > >> > > >> > > > > > would > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> accompany the message, right? What if the > >> > deployers of > >> > > the > >> > > >> > same > >> > > >> > > > app > >> > > >> > > > > > in > >> > > >> > > > > > >> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> other cluster uses 0x57? They won't > understand > >> > each > >> > > other? > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I'm not sure that's an avoidable problem. I > >> > think it > >> > > simply > >> > > >> > > means > >> > > >> > > > > > that > >> > > >> > > > > > >> in > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> order to share data, you have to also have a > >> > shared > >> > > (agreed > >> > > >> > > upon) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> understanding of what the namespaces mean. > >> Which > >> > I > >> > > think > >> > > >> > makes > >> > > >> > > > > sense, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> because the alternate (sharing *nothing* at > >> all) > >> > would > >> > > mean > >> > > >> > > that > >> > > >> > > > > > there > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> would be no way to understand each other. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> -James > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Gwen > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:23 PM, radai < > >> > > >> > > > > radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> +1 for sean's document. it covers pretty > >> much > >> > all > >> > > the > >> > > >> > > > trade-offs > >> > > >> > > > > > and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> provides concrete figures to argue about > :-) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> (nit-picking - used the same xkcd twice, > >> also > >> > trove > >> > > has > >> > > >> > been > >> > > >> > > > > > >> superceded > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> for > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> purposes of high performance collections: > >> > look at > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> https://github.com/leventov/Koloboke) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> so to sum up the string vs int debate: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> performance - you can do 140k ops/sec > _per > >> > thread_ > >> > > with > >> > > >> > > string > >> > > >> > > > > > >> headers. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> you > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> could do x2-3 better with ints. there's > no > >> > arguing > >> > > the > >> > > >> > > > relative > >> > > >> > > > > > diff > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> between the two, there's only the > question > >> of > >> > > whether or > >> > > >> > not > >> > > >> > > > > _the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> rest > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> of > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> kafka_ operates fast enough to care. if > we > >> > want to > >> > > make > >> > > >> > > > choices > >> > > >> > > > > > >> solely > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> based on performance we need ints. if we > are > >> > > willing to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> settle/compromise > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> for a nicer (to some) API than strings > are > >> > good > >> > > enough > >> > > >> for > >> > > >> > > the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> current > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> state of affairs. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> message size - with batching and > compression > >> > it > >> > > comes > >> > > >> down > >> > > >> > > to > >> > > >> > > > a > >> > > >> > > > > > ~5% > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> difference (internal testing, not in the > >> doc. > >> > maybe > >> > > >> would > >> > > >> > > help > >> > > >> > > > > > >> adding if > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> this becomes a point of contention?). > this > >> > means it > >> > > wont > >> > > >> > > > really > >> > > >> > > > > > >> affect > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> kafka in "throughput mode" (large, > >> compressed > >> > > batches). > >> > > >> in > >> > > >> > > > "low > >> > > >> > > > > > >> latency" > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> mode (meaning less/no batching and > >> > compression) the > >> > > >> > > difference > >> > > >> > > > > can > >> > > >> > > > > > >> be > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> extreme (it'll easily be an order of > >> > magnitude with > >> > > >> small > >> > > >> > > > > payloads > >> > > >> > > > > > >> like > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> stock ticks and header keys of the form > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> "com.acme.infraTeam.kafka. > >> hiMom.auditPlugin"). > >> > we > >> > > have > >> > > >> a > >> > > >> > > few > >> > > >> > > > > such > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> topics at > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> linkedin where actual payloads are ~2 > ints > >> > and are > >> > > >> > eclipsed > >> > > >> > > by > >> > > >> > > > > our > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> in-house > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> audit "header" which is why we liked > ints to > >> > begin > >> > > with. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> "ease of use" - strings would probably > still > >> > require > >> > > >> > _some_ > >> > > >> > > > > degree > >> > > >> > > > > > >> of > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> partitioning by convention (imagine if > >> > everyone > >> > > used the > >> > > >> > key > >> > > >> > > > > > >> "infra"...) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> but its very intuitive for java devs to > do > >> > anyway > >> > > >> > > > > (reverse-domain > >> > > >> > > > > > is > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> ingrained into java developers at a young > >> age > >> > :-) ). > >> > > >> also > >> > > >> > > most > >> > > >> > > > > > java > >> > > >> > > > > > >> devs > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> find Map<String, whatever> more intuitive > >> than > >> > > >> > Map<Integer, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> whatever> - > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> probably because of other text-based > >> > protocols like > >> > > >> http. > >> > > >> > > ints > >> > > >> > > > > > would > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> require a number registry. if you think > >> number > >> > > >> registries > >> > > >> > > are > >> > > >> > > > > hard > >> > > >> > > > > > >> just > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> look at the wiki page for KIPs > (specifically > >> > the > >> > > number > >> > > >> > for > >> > > >> > > > next > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> available > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> KIP) and think again - we are probably > >> talking > >> > > about the > >> > > >> > > same > >> > > >> > > > > > >> volume of > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> requests. also this would only be > "required" > >> > (good > >> > > >> > > > citizenship, > >> > > >> > > > > > more > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> like) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> if you want to publish your plugin for > >> others > >> > to > >> > > use. > >> > > >> > within > >> > > >> > > > > your > >> > > >> > > > > > >> org do > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> whatever you want - just know that if you > >> use > >> > [some > >> > > >> > > "reserved" > >> > > >> > > > > > >> range] > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> and a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> future kafka update breaks it its your > >> > problem. > >> > > RTFM. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> personally im in favor of ints. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> having said that (and like nacho) I will > >> > settle if > >> > > int > >> > > >> vs > >> > > >> > > > string > >> > > >> > > > > > >> remains > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> the only obstacle to this. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Nacho > Solis > >> > > >> > > > > > >> <nso...@linkedin.com.invalid > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> I think it's well known I've been > pushing > >> > for ints > >> > > >> (and I > >> > > >> > > > could > >> > > >> > > > > > >> switch > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> 16 bit shorts if pressed). > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> - efficient (space) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> - efficient (processing) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> - easily partitionable > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> However, if the only thing that is > keeping > >> > us from > >> > > >> > adopting > >> > > >> > > > > > >> headers is > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> use of strings vs ints as keys, then I > >> would > >> > cave > >> > > in > >> > > >> and > >> > > >> > > > accept > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> strings. If > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> we do so, I would like to limit string > keys > >> > to 128 > >> > > >> bytes > >> > > >> > in > >> > > >> > > > > > length. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> This > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> way 1) I could use a 3 letter string if > I > >> > wanted > >> > > >> > > (effectively > >> > > >> > > > > > >> using 4 > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> total > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> bytes), 2) limit overall impact of > possible > >> > keys > >> > > (don't > >> > > >> > > > really > >> > > >> > > > > > want > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> people > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> to send a 16K header string key). > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> Nacho > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gwen > >> Shapira > >> > < > >> > > >> > > > > g...@confluent.io> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> Forgot to mention: Thank you for > >> > quantifying the > >> > > >> > > trade-off - > >> > > >> > > > > it > >> > > >> > > > > > is > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> helpful and important regardless of > what > >> we > >> > end up > >> > > >> > > deciding. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Sean > >> > McCauliff > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> <smccaul...@linkedin.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Gwen > >> > Shapira < > >> > > >> > > > > > g...@confluent.io> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> Since Kafka specifically targets > >> > > high-throughput, > >> > > >> > > > > low-latency > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> use-cases, I don't think we should > trade > >> > them > >> > > off > >> > > >> that > >> > > >> > > > > easily. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> I find these kind of design goals not > to > >> be > >> > > really > >> > > >> > > helpful > >> > > >> > > > > > unless > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> it's > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> quantified in someway. Because it's > >> always > >> > > possible > >> > > >> to > >> > > >> > > > argue > >> > > >> > > > > > >> against > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> something as either being not > performant > >> > or just > >> > > an > >> > > >> > > > > > >> implementation > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> detail. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> This is a single threaded benchmarks > so > >> > all the > >> > > >> > > > measurements > >> > > >> > > > > > are > >> > > >> > > > > > >> per > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> thread. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> For 1M messages/s/thread if header > keys > >> > are int > >> > > and > >> > > >> > you > >> > > >> > > > had > >> > > >> > > > > > >> even a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> single > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> header key, value pair then it's still > >> > about 2^-2 > >> > > >> > > > > microseconds > >> > > >> > > > > > >> which > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> means > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> you only have another 0.75 > microseconds > >> to > >> > do > >> > > >> > everything > >> > > >> > > > else > >> > > >> > > > > > you > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> want > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> do with a message (1M messages/s > means 1 > >> > micro > >> > > second > >> > > >> > per > >> > > >> > > > > > >> message). > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> With > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> string header keys there is still 0.5 > >> micro > >> > > seconds > >> > > >> to > >> > > >> > > > > process > >> > > >> > > > > > a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> message. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> I love strings as much as the next guy > >> (we > >> > had > >> > > them > >> > > >> in > >> > > >> > > > > Flume), > >> > > >> > > > > > >> but I > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> was convinced by Magnus/Michael/Radai > >> that > >> > > strings > >> > > >> > don't > >> > > >> > > > > > >> actually > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> have > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> strong benefits as opposed to ints > >> > (you'll need > >> > > a > >> > > >> > string > >> > > >> > > > > > >> registry > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> anyway - otherwise, how will you know > >> > what does > >> > > the > >> > > >> > > > > > "profile_id" > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> header refers to?) and I want to keep > >> > closer to > >> > > our > >> > > >> > > > original > >> > > >> > > > > > >> design > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> goals for Kafka. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> "confluent.profile_id" > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> If someone likes strings in the > headers > >> > and > >> > > doesn't > >> > > >> do > >> > > >> > > > > > millions > >> > > >> > > > > > >> of > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> messages a sec, they probably have > lots > >> > of other > >> > > >> > systems > >> > > >> > > > > they > >> > > >> > > > > > >> can > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> use > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> instead. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> None of them will scale like Kafka. > >> > Horizontal > >> > > >> scaling > >> > > >> > > is > >> > > >> > > > > > still > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> good. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Sean > >> > McCauliff > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> <smccaul...@linkedin.com.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> +1 for String keys. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> I've been doing some bechmarking > and it > >> > seems > >> > > like > >> > > >> > the > >> > > >> > > > > > speedup > >> > > >> > > > > > >> for > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> using > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> integer keys is about 2-5 depending > on > >> > the > >> > > length > >> > > >> of > >> > > >> > > the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> strings > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> what > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> collections are being used. The > overall > >> > amount > >> > > of > >> > > >> > time > >> > > >> > > > > spent > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> parsing > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> set > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> of header key, value pairs probably > >> does > >> > not > >> > > matter > >> > > >> > > > unless > >> > > >> > > > > > you > >> > > >> > > > > > >> are > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> getting > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> close to 1M messages per consumer. > In > >> > which > >> > > case > >> > > >> > > > probably > >> > > >> > > > > > >> don't > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> use > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> headers. There is also the option to > >> use > >> > very > >> > > >> short > >> > > >> > > > > strings; > >> > > >> > > > > > >> some > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> that > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> are > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> even shorter than integers. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> Partitioning the string key space > will > >> be > >> > > easier > >> > > >> than > >> > > >> > > > > > >> partitioning > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> an > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> integer key space. We won't need a > >> global > >> > > registry. > >> > > >> > > > Kafka > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> internally > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> can > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> reserve some prefix like "_" as its > >> > namespace. > >> > > >> > > Everyone > >> > > >> > > > > else > >> > > >> > > > > > >> can > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> use > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> their > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> company or project name as namespace > >> > prefix and > >> > > >> life > >> > > >> > > > should > >> > > >> > > > > > be > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> good. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> Here's the link to some of the > >> > benchmarking > >> > > info: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/ > >> document/d/1tfT- > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> 6SZdnKOLyWGDH82kS30PnUkmgb7nPL > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> dw6p65pAI/edit?usp=sharing > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> -- > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> Sean McCauliff > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> Staff Software Engineer > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> Kafka > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> smccaul...@linkedin.com > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> linkedin.com/in/sean- > mccauliff-b563192 > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:51 PM, > >> Michael > >> > > Pearce < > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> michael.pea...@ig.com> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> +1 on this slimmer version of our > >> > proposal > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> I def think the Id space we can > reduce > >> > from > >> > > the > >> > > >> > > proposed > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> int32(4bytes) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> down to int16(2bytes) it saves on > >> space > >> > and as > >> > > >> > headers > >> > > >> > > > we > >> > > >> > > > > > >> wouldn't > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> expect > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> the number of headers being used > >> > concurrently > >> > > >> being > >> > > >> > > that > >> > > >> > > > > > high. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> I would wonder if we should make > the > >> > value > >> > > byte > >> > > >> > array > >> > > >> > > > > length > >> > > >> > > > > > >> still > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> int32 > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> though as This is the standard Max > >> array > >> > > length in > >> > > >> > > Java > >> > > >> > > > > > saying > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> that > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> it > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> is a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> header and I guess limiting the > size > >> is > >> > > sensible > >> > > >> and > >> > > >> > > > would > >> > > >> > > > > > >> work > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> for > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> all > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> use cases we have in mind so happy > >> with > >> > > limiting > >> > > >> > this. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Do people generally concur on > Magnus's > >> > slimmer > >> > > >> > > version? > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Anyone see > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> any > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> issues if we moved from int32 to > >> int16? > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Re configurable ids per plugin > over a > >> > global > >> > > >> > registry > >> > > >> > > > also > >> > > >> > > > > > >> would > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> work > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> for > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> us. As such if this has better > >> > concensus over > >> > > the > >> > > >> > > > > proposed > >> > > >> > > > > > >> global > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> registry > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> I'd be happy to change that. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> I was already sold on ints over > >> strings > >> > for > >> > > keys > >> > > >> ;) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Cheers > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Mike > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> ______________________________ > >> > __________ > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> From: Magnus Edenhill < > >> > mag...@edenhill.se> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2016 > >> 10:10:21 > >> > PM > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> To: dev@kafka.apache.org > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-82 - Add > >> > Record > >> > > Headers > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Hi, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> I'm +1 for adding generic message > >> > headers, > >> > > but I > >> > > >> do > >> > > >> > > > share > >> > > >> > > > > > the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> concerns > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> previously aired on this thread and > >> > during > >> > > the KIP > >> > > >> > > > > meeting. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> So let me propose a slimmer > >> alternative > >> > that > >> > > does > >> > > >> > not > >> > > >> > > > > > require > >> > > >> > > > > > >> any > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> sort > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> of > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> global header registry, does not > >> affect > >> > broker > >> > > >> > > > performance > >> > > >> > > > > > or > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> operations, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> and adds as little overhead as > >> possible. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Message > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> ------------ > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> The protocol Message type is > extended > >> > with a > >> > > >> Headers > >> > > >> > > > array > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> consting > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> of > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Tags, where a Tag is defined as: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> int16 Id > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> int16 Len // binary_data length > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> binary_data[Len] // opaque binary > data > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Ids > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> --- > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> The Id space is not centrally > managed, > >> > so > >> > > whenever > >> > > >> > an > >> > > >> > > > > > >> application > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> needs > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> add headers, or use an eco-system > >> > plugin that > >> > > >> does, > >> > > >> > > its > >> > > >> > > > Id > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> allocation > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> will > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> need to be manually configured. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> This moves the allocation concern > from > >> > the > >> > > global > >> > > >> > > space > >> > > >> > > > > down > >> > > >> > > > > > >> to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> organization level and avoids the > risk > >> > for id > >> > > >> > > conflicts. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Example pseudo-config for some app: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> sometrackerplugin.tag.sourcev3.id > >> =1000 > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> dbthing.tag.tablename.id=1001 > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> myschemareg.tag.schemaname.id=1002 > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> myschemareg.tag.schemaversion.id > =1003 > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Each header-writing or > header-reading > >> > plugin > >> > > must > >> > > >> > > > provide > >> > > >> > > > > > >> means > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> (typically > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> through configuration) to specify > the > >> > tag for > >> > > each > >> > > >> > > > header > >> > > >> > > > > it > >> > > >> > > > > > >> uses. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> Defaults > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> should be avoided. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> A consumer silently ignores tags it > >> > does not > >> > > have > >> > > >> a > >> > > >> > > > > mapping > >> > > >> > > > > > >> for > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> (since > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> binary_data can't be parsed without > >> > knowing > >> > > what > >> > > >> it > >> > > >> > > is). > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Id range 0..999 is reserved for > future > >> > use by > >> > > the > >> > > >> > > broker > >> > > >> > > > > and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> must > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> not be > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> used by plugins. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Broker > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> --------- > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> The broker does not process the > tags > >> > (other > >> > > than > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> > > > > > standard > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> protocol > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> syntax verification), it simply > stores > >> > and > >> > > >> forwards > >> > > >> > > them > >> > > >> > > > > as > >> > > >> > > > > > >> opaque > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> data. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Standard message translation > (removal > >> of > >> > > Headers) > >> > > >> > > kicks > >> > > >> > > > in > >> > > >> > > > > > for > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> older > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> clients. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Why not string ids? > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> ------------------------- > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> String ids might seem like a good > >> idea, > >> > but: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> * does not really solve uniqueness > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> * consumes a lot of space (2 byte > >> string > >> > > length + > >> > > >> > > > string, > >> > > >> > > > > > per > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> header) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> be meaningful > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> * doesn't really say anything how > to > >> > parse the > >> > > >> tag's > >> > > >> > > > data, > >> > > >> > > > > > so > >> > > >> > > > > > >> it > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> is > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> in > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> effect useless on its own. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Regards, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Magnus > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> 2016-11-07 18:32 GMT+01:00 Michael > >> > Pearce < > >> > > >> > > > > > >> michael.pea...@ig.com > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Hi Roger, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the support. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> I think the key thing is to have a > >> > common key > >> > > >> space > >> > > >> > > to > >> > > >> > > > > make > >> > > >> > > > > > >> an > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> ecosystem, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> there does have to be some level > of > >> > contract > >> > > for > >> > > >> > > people > >> > > >> > > > > to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> play > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> nicely. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Having map<String, byte[]> or as > per > >> > current > >> > > >> > proposed > >> > > >> > > > in > >> > > >> > > > > > kip > >> > > >> > > > > > >> of > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> having a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> numerical key space of map<int, > >> > byte[]> is a > >> > > >> level > >> > > >> > > of > >> > > >> > > > > the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> contract > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> that > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> most people would expect. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> I think the example in a previous > >> > comment > >> > > someone > >> > > >> > > else > >> > > >> > > > > made > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> linking to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> AWS > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> blog and also implemented api > where > >> > > originally > >> > > >> they > >> > > >> > > > > didn't > >> > > >> > > > > > >> have a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> header > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> space but not they do, where keys > are > >> > > uniform but > >> > > >> > the > >> > > >> > > > > value > >> > > >> > > > > > >> can > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> be > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> string, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> int, anything is a good example. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Having a custom > MetadataSerializer is > >> > > something > >> > > >> we > >> > > >> > > had > >> > > >> > > > > > played > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> with, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> but > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> discounted the idea, as if you > wanted > >> > > everyone to > >> > > >> > > work > >> > > >> > > > > the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> same > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> way in > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> ecosystem, having to have this > also > >> > > customizable > >> > > >> > > makes > >> > > >> > > > > it a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> bit > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> harder. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Think about making the whole > message > >> > record > >> > > >> custom > >> > > >> > > > > > >> serializable, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> this > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> would > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> make it fairly tricky (though it > >> would > >> > not be > >> > > >> > > > impossible) > >> > > >> > > > > > to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> have > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> made > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> work > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> nicely. Having the value > customizable > >> > we > >> > > thought > >> > > >> > is a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> reasonable > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> tradeoff > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> here of flexibility over contract > of > >> > > interaction > >> > > >> > > > between > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> different > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> parties. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Is there a particular case or > benefit > >> > of > >> > > having > >> > > >> > > > > > serialization > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> customizable > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> that you have in mind? > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Saying this it is obviously > something > >> > that > >> > > could > >> > > >> be > >> > > >> > > > > > >> implemented, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> if > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> there > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> is a need. If we did go this > avenue I > >> > think a > >> > > >> > > defaulted > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> serializer > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> implementation should exist so for > >> the > >> > 80:20 > >> > > >> rule, > >> > > >> > > > people > >> > > >> > > > > > can > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> just > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> have > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> broker and clients get default > >> > behavior. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Cheers > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Mike > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> On 11/6/16, 5:25 PM, "radai" < > >> > > >> > > > radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> making header _key_ serialization > >> > > configurable > >> > > >> > > > > > potentially > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> undermines > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> board usefulness of the feature > (any > >> > point > >> > > >> along > >> > > >> > > the > >> > > >> > > > > > path > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> must > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> be > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> able > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> read the header keys. the values > may > >> be > >> > > >> whatever > >> > > >> > > and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> require > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> more > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> intimate > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> knowledge of the code that > produced > >> > specific > >> > > >> > > > headers, > >> > > >> > > > > > but > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> keys > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> should > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> be > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> universally readable). > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> it would also make it hard to > write > >> > really > >> > > >> > > portable > >> > > >> > > > > > >> plugins - > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> say > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> i > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> large message splitter/combiner - > if > >> i > >> > rely > >> > > on > >> > > >> > key > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> "largeMessage" > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> values of the form "1/20" someone > who > >> > uses > >> > > >> > > > (contrived > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> example) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Map<Byte[], > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Double> wouldnt be able to re-use > my > >> > code. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> not the end of a the world within > an > >> > > >> > organization, > >> > > >> > > > but > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> problematic if > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> you > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> want to enable an ecosystem > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 2:04 PM, > Roger > >> > Hoover > >> > > < > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> roger.hoo...@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> As others have laid out, I see > >> strong > >> > > reasons > >> > > >> for > >> > > >> > a > >> > > >> > > > > common > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> message > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> metadata structure for the Kafka > >> > ecosystem. > >> > > In > >> > > >> > > > > > particular, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> I've > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> seen that > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> even within a single > organization, > >> > > >> infrastructure > >> > > >> > > > teams > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> often > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> own > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> message metadata while > application > >> > teams > >> > > own the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> application-level > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> data > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> format. Allowing metadata and > >> content > >> > to > >> > > have > >> > > >> > > > different > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> structure > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> evolve separately is very helpful > >> for > >> > this. > >> > > >> > Also, I > >> > > >> > > > > think > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> there's > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> lot of > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> value to having a common metadata > >> > structure > >> > > >> shared > >> > > >> > > > > across > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> Kafka > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> ecosystem so that tools which > >> leverage > >> > > metadata > >> > > >> > can > >> > > >> > > > more > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> easily > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> be > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> shared > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> across organizations and > integrated > >> > > together. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> The question is, where does the > >> > metadata > >> > > >> structure > >> > > >> > > > > belong? > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> Here's > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> my take: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> We change the Kafka wire and > on-disk > >> > format > >> > > to > >> > > >> > from > >> > > >> > > a > >> > > >> > > > > > (key, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> value) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> model to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> a (key, metadata, value) model > where > >> > all > >> > > three > >> > > >> are > >> > > >> > > > byte > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> arrays > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> from > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> brokers point of view. The > primary > >> > reason > >> > > for > >> > > >> > this > >> > > >> > > is > >> > > >> > > > > > that > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> it > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> provides a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> backward compatible migration > path > >> > forward. > >> > > >> > > Producers > >> > > >> > > > > can > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> start > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> populating > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> metadata fields before all > consumers > >> > > understand > >> > > >> > the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> metadata > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> structure. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> For people who already have > custom > >> > envelope > >> > > >> > > > structures, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> they > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> can > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> populate > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> their existing structure and the > new > >> > > structure > >> > > >> > for a > >> > > >> > > > > while > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> as > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> they > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> make the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> transition. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> We could stop there and let the > >> > clients > >> > > plug in > >> > > >> a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> KeySerializer, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> MetadataSerializer, and > >> > ValueSerializer but > >> > > I > >> > > >> > think > >> > > >> > > it > >> > > >> > > > > is > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> also > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> be > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> useful to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> have a default MetadataSerializer > >> that > >> > > >> implements > >> > > >> > a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> key-value > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> model > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> similar > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> to AMQP or HTTP headers. Or we > could > >> > go even > >> > > >> > > further > >> > > >> > > > > and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> prescribe a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Map<String, byte[]> or > Map<String, > >> > String> > >> > > data > >> > > >> > > model > >> > > >> > > > > for > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> headers > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> in > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> clients (while still allowing > custom > >> > > >> serialization > >> > > >> > > of > >> > > >> > > > > the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> header > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> data > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> model). > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I think this would address > Radai's > >> > concerns: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> 1. All client code would not > need to > >> > be > >> > > updated > >> > > >> to > >> > > >> > > > know > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> about > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> container. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> 2. Middleware friendly clients > would > >> > have a > >> > > >> > standard > >> > > >> > > > > > header > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> data > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> model to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> work with. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> 3. KIP is required both b/c of > >> broker > >> > > changes > >> > > >> and > >> > > >> > > > > because > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> of > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> client > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> API > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> changes. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Roger > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:38 PM, > >> radai > >> > < > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> my biggest issues with a > "standard" > >> > wrapper > >> > > >> > format: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. _ALL_ client _CODE_ (as > opposed > >> to > >> > > kafka lib > >> > > >> > > > > version) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> must > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> be > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> updated > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> know about the container, > because > >> > any old > >> > > naive > >> > > >> > > code > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> trying to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> directly > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> deserialize its own payload > would > >> > keel > >> > > over and > >> > > >> > die > >> > > >> > > > (it > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> needs > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> know to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> deserialize a container, and > then > >> > dig in > >> > > there > >> > > >> > for > >> > > >> > > > its > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> payload). > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> 2. in order to write > >> > middleware-friendly > >> > > >> clients > >> > > >> > > that > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> utilize > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> such > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> container one would basically > have > >> > to write > >> > > >> their > >> > > >> > > own > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> producer/consumer > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> API > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> on top of the open source kafka > >> one. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> 3. if you were going to go with > a > >> > wrapper > >> > > >> format > >> > > >> > > you > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> really > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> dont > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> need to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> bother with a kip (just open > source > >> > your > >> > > own > >> > > >> > client > >> > > >> > > > > stack > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> from #2 > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> above > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> so > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> others could stop re-inventing > it) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:25 PM, > >> James > >> > > Cheng < > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> wushuja...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly would this work? Or > >> > maybe > >> > > that's > >> > > >> out > >> > > >> > > of > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> scope > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> for > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> this > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> email. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> The information contained in this > >> > email is > >> > > >> strictly > >> > > >> > > > > > >> confidential > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> for > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> the use of the addressee only, > unless > >> > > otherwise > >> > > >> > > > > indicated. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> If you > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> are > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> not > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> the intended recipient, please do > not > >> > read, > >> > > copy, > >> > > >> > use > >> > > >> > > > or > >> > > >> > > > > > >> disclose > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> others > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> this message or any attachment. > >> Please > >> > also > >> > > >> notify > >> > > >> > > the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> sender by > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> replying > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> to this email or by telephone > >> (+44(020 > >> > 7896 > >> > > 0011) > >> > > >> > and > >> > > >> > > > > then > >> > > >> > > > > > >> delete > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> email > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> and any copies of it. Opinions, > >> > conclusion > >> > > (etc) > >> > > >> > that > >> > > >> > > > do > >> > > >> > > > > > not > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> relate to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> official business of this company > >> > shall be > >> > > >> > understood > >> > > >> > > > as > >> > > >> > > > > > >> neither > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> given > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> nor > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> endorsed by it. IG is a trading > name > >> > of IG > >> > > >> Markets > >> > > >> > > > > Limited > >> > > >> > > > > > (a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> company > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> registered in England and Wales, > >> > company > >> > > number > >> > > >> > > > 04008957) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> and IG > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> Index > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Limited (a company registered in > >> > England and > >> > > >> Wales, > >> > > >> > > > > company > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> number > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> 01190902). Registered address at > >> Cannon > >> > > Bridge > >> > > >> > House, > >> > > >> > > > 25 > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Dowgate > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> Hill, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets > >> > Limited > >> > > >> (register > >> > > >> > > > number > >> > > >> > > > > > >> 195355) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> IG > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Index Limited (register number > >> 114059) > >> > are > >> > > >> > authorised > >> > > >> > > > and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> regulated by > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> Financial Conduct Authority. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> The information contained in this > >> email > >> > is > >> > > >> strictly > >> > > >> > > > > > >> confidential > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> for > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> the use of the addressee only, > unless > >> > > otherwise > >> > > >> > > > indicated. > >> > > >> > > > > > If > >> > > >> > > > > > >> you > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> are > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> not > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> the intended recipient, please do > not > >> > read, > >> > > copy, > >> > > >> > use > >> > > >> > > or > >> > > >> > > > > > >> disclose > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> others > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> this message or any attachment. > Please > >> > also > >> > > notify > >> > > >> > the > >> > > >> > > > > > sender > >> > > >> > > > > > >> by > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> replying > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> to this email or by telephone > (+44(020 > >> > 7896 > >> > > 0011) > >> > > >> > and > >> > > >> > > > then > >> > > >> > > > > > >> delete > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> email > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> and any copies of it. Opinions, > >> > conclusion > >> > > (etc) > >> > > >> > that > >> > > >> > > do > >> > > >> > > > > not > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> relate > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> to > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> official business of this company > >> shall > >> > be > >> > > >> > understood > >> > > >> > > as > >> > > >> > > > > > >> neither > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> given > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> nor > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> endorsed by it. IG is a trading > name > >> of > >> > IG > >> > > Markets > >> > > >> > > > Limited > >> > > >> > > > > > (a > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> company > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> registered in England and Wales, > >> company > >> > > number > >> > > >> > > > 04008957) > >> > > >> > > > > > and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> IG > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> Index > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Limited (a company registered in > >> > England and > >> > > >> Wales, > >> > > >> > > > > company > >> > > >> > > > > > >> number > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> 01190902). Registered address at > >> Cannon > >> > Bridge > >> > > >> > House, > >> > > >> > > 25 > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Dowgate > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> Hill, > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets > >> Limited > >> > > (register > >> > > >> > > > number > >> > > >> > > > > > >> 195355) > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> and IG > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Index Limited (register number > 114059) > >> > are > >> > > >> > authorised > >> > > >> > > > and > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> regulated > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> by > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> the > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> Financial Conduct Authority. > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> -- > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> Gwen Shapira > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> Product Manager | Confluent > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> Follow us: Twitter | blog > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> -- > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> Gwen Shapira > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> Product Manager | Confluent > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> Follow us: Twitter | blog > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> -- > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> Nacho (Ignacio) Solis > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> Kafka > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> nso...@linkedin.com > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > -- > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Gwen Shapira > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Product Manager | Confluent > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Follow us: Twitter | blog > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> -- > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Gwen Shapira > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Product Manager | Confluent > >> > > >> > > > > > >> 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Follow us: Twitter | blog > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > The information contained in this email is > strictly > >> > > confidential > >> > > >> > and > >> > > >> > > > for > >> > > >> > > > > > the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise > >> > indicated. > >> > > If you > >> > > >> > are > >> > > >> > > > not > >> > > >> > > > > > the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, > use > >> > or > >> > > disclose > >> > > >> > to > >> > > >> > > > > others > >> > > >> > > > > > this message or any attachment. Please also notify > >> the > >> > > sender by > >> > > >> > > > replying > >> > > >> > > > > > to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) > and > >> > then > >> > > delete > >> > > >> > the > >> > > >> > > > > email > >> > > >> > > > > > and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) > that > >> > do not > >> > > >> relate > >> > > >> > > to > >> > > >> > > > > the > >> > > >> > > > > > official business of this company shall be > understood > >> > as > >> > > neither > >> > > >> > > given > >> > > >> > > > > nor > >> > > >> > > > > > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets > >> > Limited (a > >> > > >> > company > >> > > >> > > > > > registered in England and Wales, company number > >> > 04008957) > >> > > and IG > >> > > >> > > Index > >> > > >> > > > > > Limited (a company registered in England and > Wales, > >> > company > >> > > >> number > >> > > >> > > > > > 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge > House, > >> > 25 > >> > > Dowgate > >> > > >> > > Hill, > >> > > >> > > > > > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register > >> > number > >> > > 195355) > >> > > >> > and > >> > > >> > > > IG > >> > > >> > > > > > Index Limited (register number 114059) are > authorised > >> > and > >> > > >> regulated > >> > > >> > > by > >> > > >> > > > > the > >> > > >> > > > > > Financial Conduct Authority. > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The information contained in this email is strictly > >> confidential > >> > and > >> > > for > >> > > >> the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. > If > >> > you are > >> > > not > >> > > >> the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or > >> > disclose to > >> > > others > >> > > >> this message or any attachment. Please also notify the > sender > >> by > >> > > replying > >> > > >> to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then > >> > delete the > >> > > email > >> > > >> and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not > >> > relate to > >> > > the > >> > > >> official business of this company shall be understood as > >> neither > >> > given > >> > > nor > >> > > >> endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited > (a > >> > company > >> > > >> registered in England and Wales, company number 04008957) > and > >> IG > >> > Index > >> > > >> Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company > >> > number > >> > > >> 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25 > >> Dowgate > >> > Hill, > >> > > >> London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register number > >> > 195355) and > >> > > IG > >> > > >> Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised and > >> > regulated by > >> > > the > >> > > >> Financial Conduct Authority. > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > Nacho - Ignacio Solis - iso...@igso.net > >> > > The information contained in this email is strictly confidential > >> and > >> > for > >> > > the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If > you > >> > are not > >> > > the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or > disclose > >> to > >> > others > >> > > this message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender by > >> > replying > >> > > to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then > delete > >> > the email > >> > > and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not > relate > >> > to the > >> > > official business of this company shall be understood as neither > >> > given nor > >> > > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited (a > >> company > >> > > registered in England and Wales, company number 04008957) and IG > >> > Index > >> > > Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company > number > >> > > 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate > >> > Hill, > >> > > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register number > 195355) > >> > and IG > >> > > Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised and > regulated > >> > by the > >> > > Financial Conduct Authority. > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Nacho - Ignacio Solis - iso...@igso.net > >> > > >> > > >> > The information contained in this email is strictly confidential and > for > >> > the use of the addressee only, unless otherwise indicated. If you are > not > >> > the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose to > >> others > >> > this message or any attachment. Please also notify the sender by > replying > >> > to this email or by telephone (+44(020 7896 0011) and then delete the > >> email > >> > and any copies of it. Opinions, conclusion (etc) that do not relate to > >> the > >> > official business of this company shall be understood as neither given > >> nor > >> > endorsed by it. IG is a trading name of IG Markets Limited (a company > >> > registered in England and Wales, company number 04008957) and IG Index > >> > Limited (a company registered in England and Wales, company number > >> > 01190902). Registered address at Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill, > >> > London EC4R 2YA. Both IG Markets Limited (register number 195355) and > IG > >> > Index Limited (register number 114059) are authorised and regulated by > >> the > >> > Financial Conduct Authority. > >> > > >> > > > > -- > Gwen Shapira > Product Manager | Confluent > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > Follow us: Twitter | blog > >
