> > > The ideal scenario would be for us to provide a tool for no downtime > migration as discussed in the original thread (I filed > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4513 in response to that > discussion). There are a few issues, however: > > - There doesn't seem to be much demand for it (outside of LinkedIn, at > least) > - No-one is working on it or has indicated that they are planning to > work on it > - It's a non-trivial change and it requires a good amount of testing to > ensure it works as expected >
For LinkedIn: while there are a few consuming applications for which the current shut-down and restart approach to migration will suffice, I doubt we will be able to do this for majority of services that are outside our direct control. Given that a seamless migration is a pre-req for us to switch to the new consumer widely (there are a few use-cases already on it) it is something that we (LinkedIn) will likely implement although we haven't done further brainstorming/improvements beyond what was proposed in the other deprecation thread. > In the meantime, we have this suboptimal situation where the old consumers > are close to unmaintained even though we don't say it outright: they don't get new features (basic things like security are missing) and bug fixes are > rare. In practice, the old clients have been deprecated a while back, we > Agreed that it is suboptimal, but the reality is that LI and I think a few other companies are still to a large extent on the old consumer and will be for at least a good part of this year. This does mean that we have the overhead of maintaining some internal workarounds for the old consumer. > just haven't made it official. This proposal is about rectifying that so > that we communicate our intentions to our users more clearly. As Vahid > said, this KIP is not about changing how we maintain the existing code. > > The KIP that proposes the removal of all the old clients will be more > interesting, but it doesn't exist yet. :) > Deprecating *after* providing a sound migration path still seems to be the right thing to do but if there isn't any demand for it then maybe that's a reasonable compromise. I'm still surprised that more users aren't as impacted by this and as mentioned earlier, it could be an issue of awareness but I'm not sure that deprecating before a migration path is in place would be considered best-practice in raising awareness. Thanks, Joel > > Ismael > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Vahid S Hashemian < > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com > > wrote: > > > One thing that probably needs some clarification is what is implied by > > "deprecated" in the Kafka project. > > I googled it a bit and it doesn't seem that deprecation conventionally > > implies termination of support (or anything that could negatively impact > > existing users). That's my interpretation too. > > It would be good to know if Kafka follows a different interpretation of > > the term. > > > > If my understanding of the term is correct, since we are not yet > targeting > > a certain major release in which the old consumer will be removed, I > don't > > see any harm in marking it as deprecated. > > There will be enough time to plan and implement the migration, if the > > community decides that's the way to go, before phasing it out. > > > > At the minimum new Kafka users will pick the Java consumer without any > > confusion. And existing users will know that Kafka is preparing for the > > old consumer's retirement. > > > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > From: Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> > > To: "dev@kafka.apache.org" <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > Date: 01/05/2017 06:55 PM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation > > > > > > > > While I realize this only marks the old consumer as deprecated and not a > > complete removal, I agree that it is somewhat premature to do this prior > > to > > having a migration process implemented. Onur has described this in detail > > in the earlier thread: http://markmail.org/message/ekv352zy7xttco5s and > > I'm > > surprised that more companies aren't affected by (or aware of?) the > issue. > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:40 PM, radai <radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I cant speak for anyone else, but a rolling upgrade is definitely how > we > > > (LinkedIn) will do the migration. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > it sounds good to have > > > > it, but that's probably not how people will end up migrati > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
