I’ve added the methods on the ProducerRecord that will return a new instance of
ProducerRecord with modified headers.
On 24/02/2017, 19:22, "Michael Pearce" <michael.pea...@ig.com> wrote:
Pattern.compile is expensive, and even if cached String.equals is faster
than matched. also if we end up with an internal map in future for performance
it will be easier to be by key.
As all that's needed is to get header by key.
With like the other arguements of let's implement simple and then we can
always add pattern later as well if it's found it's needed. (As noted it's
easier to add methods than to take away)
Great I'll update kip with extra methods on producerecord and a note that
new objects are returned by method calls.
Sent using OWA for iPhone
________________________________________
From: Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 6:51:45 PM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-82 - Add Record Headers
The APIs in the current KIP look good to me. Just a couple questions: why
does filter not return Headers? Also would it be useful if the key is a
regex?
On the point of immutability.. One option might be to use a mutable object
only when passing the headers through the interceptor chain. I think as
long as we resort to mutability only when clear performance results show
that it is worthwhile, I am satisfied. As Ismael noted, for common
scenarios it is possible to get reasonable performance with immutable
objects.
-Jason
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 8:48 AM, Michael Pearce <michael.pea...@ig.com>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 1, How can you guarantee two separate implemented clients would add
> the headers in the same order we are not specifying an order at the
> protocol level (nor should we) with regards to keyA being ordered before
> keyB? We shouldn’t be expecting keyA to be always set before keyB.
>
> On 2, I believe we have changed the naming based on feedback from Jason
> already, e.g. we don’t have “get” method that inferred O(1) performance,
> like wise nor “put” but we have an “append”
>
> On 3, in the KafkaProducer, I think we have mutability already, the value
> for time is changed if it is null, at the point of send:
> “
> long timestamp = record.timestamp() == null ?
> time.milliseconds() : record.timestamp();
> “
>
> As such the timestamp is already mutable, so what’s the difference here,
> we already have some mixed semantics. On timestamp.
> e.g. currently if I send to records with timestamp not set, the wire
> binary sent the value for the timestamp would be different, as such we
have
> mutation for the same record.
>
> On 4, I think we should not expect not 1 or 2 headers, but infact 10’s of
> headers. This is the concern on immutable headers, whilst the append
> self-reference works nicely, what if someone needs to remove a header?
>
> Trying to get this moving:
>
> If we really wanted Immutable Headers and essentially you guys wont give
> +1 for it without.
>
> Whats the feeling for adding methods to ProducerRecord that does the
> boiler plate code or creating a new ProducerRecord with the altered new
> headers (appended or removed) inside. E.g.
>
> ProducerRecord {
>
>
> ProducerRecord append(Iterable<Headers> headersToAppend){
> return new ProducerRecord(key, value, headers.append(headersToAppend),
> ….)
> }
>
> ProducerRecord remove(Iterable<Headers> headersToAppend){
> return new ProducerRecord(key, value, headers.remove(headersToAppend),
> ….)
> }
>
> }
>
> Were the headers methods actually returns new objects, and the producer
> records methods create a new producer record with all the current values,
> but with the new modified headers.
>
> Then interceptors / code return this new object?
>
>
> Cheers
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24/02/2017, 16:02, "isma...@gmail.com on behalf of Ismael Juma" <
> isma...@gmail.com on behalf of ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Did you mean that you were happy to compromise to keep it mutable or
> immutable? You wrote the former, but it sounded from the sentence that
> it
> could have been a typo. So, my thoughts on this is that there are a
few
> things to take into account:
>
> 1. Semantics
> 2. Simplicity of use (the common operations should be easy to do)
> 3. If it's easy to reason about and safe (immutability helps with
this)
> 4. Efficiency (both memory and CPU usage)
>
> Regarding 1, I think it would be good to be very clear about the
> guarantees
> that we are providing. It seems that we are saying that keys are
> unordered,
> but what about the case where there are multiple values for the same
> key?
> It seems that for some use cases (e.g. lineage), it may be useful to
> add
> values to the same key while preserving the order.
>
> Regarding 2, I agree that it's useful to have methods in `Headers` for
> the
> very common use cases although we have to be careful with the naming
to
> avoid giving the wrong impression. Also, when it comes to `Map.Entry`,
> I
> think I'd prefer a `toMap` method that simply gives the user a Map if
> that's what they want (it makes it clear that there's a conversion
> happening).
>
> Regarding 3, the concern I have if we make the headers mutable is that
> it
> seems to introduce some inconsistencies and potential edge cases. At
> the
> moment, it's safe to keep a ProducerRecord and resend it, for example.
> If
> the record is mutated by an interceptor, then this can lead to weird
> behaviour. Also, it seems inconsistent that one has to create a new
> ProducerRecord to modify the record timestamp, but that one has to
> mutate
> the record to add headers. It seems like one should either embrace
> immutability or mutability, but mixing both is not ideal.
>
> Regarding 4, for the cases where there are a small number of headers
> and/or
> 1 or 2 interceptors, it doesn't seem difficult to come up with
> reasonable
> implementations for mutable and immutable cases that do a good enough
> job.
> However, if the number of headers and interceptors is large, then care
> is
> needed for the immutable case to avoid unnecessary copying. A simple
> option
> that adds little memory overhead if we have Header instances is to
> simply
> add a self-reference to the previous Header in the linked list.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Michael Pearce <michael.pea...@ig.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Im happy to compromise to keep it mutable but move to an append
> style api.
> > (as in guava interables concat)
> >
> > class Headers {
> > Headers append(Iterable<Header> headers);
> > }
> >
> >
> > I don’t think we’d want prepend, this would give the idea of
> guaranteed
> > ordering, when in actual fact we don’t provide that guarantee (.e.g
> one
> > client can put headerA, then headerB, but another could put headerB
> then
> > headerA, this shouldn’t cause issues), Also what if we changed to a
> hashmap
> > for the internal implementation, its just a bucket of entries no
> ordering.
> > I think we just need to provide an api to add/append headers.
> >
> > This ok? If so ill update KIP to record this.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Mike
> >
> > On 23/02/2017, 00:37, "Jason Gustafson" <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > The point about usability is fair. It's also reasonable to
> expect that
> > common use cases such as appending headers should be done
> efficiently.
> >
> > Perhaps we could compromise with something like this?
> >
> > class Headers {
> > Headers append(Iterable<Header> headers);
> > Headers prepend(Iterable<Header> headers);
> > }
> >
> > That retains ease of use while still giving ourselves some
> flexibility
> > in
> > the implementation.
> >
> > -Jason
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Michael Pearce <
> michael.pea...@ig.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I wasn’t referring to the headers needing to be copied, im
> meaning
> > the
> > > fact we’d be forcing a new producer record to be created, with
> all
> > the
> > > contents copied.
> > >
> > > i.e what will happen is utility method will be created or end
> up
> > being
> > > used, which does this, and returns the new ProducerRecord
> instance.
> > >
> > > ProducerRecord addHeader(ProducerRecord record, Header
> header){
> > > Return New ProducerRecord(record.key, record.value,
> > record.timestamp…..,
> > > record.headers.concat(header))
> > > }
> > >
> > > To me this seems ugly, but will be inevitable if we don’t make
> adding
> > > headers to existing records a simple clean method call.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 22/02/2017, 22:57, "Michael Pearce" <michael.pea...@ig.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Lazy init can achieve/avoid that.
> > >
> > > Re the concat, why don’t we implement that inside the
> Headers
> > rather
> > > than causing everyone to implement this as adding headers in
> > interceptors
> > > will be a dominant use case. We want a user friendly API.
> Having as
> > a user
> > > having to code this instead of having the headers handle this
> for me
> > seems
> > > redundant.
> > >
> > > On 22/02/2017, 22:34, "Jason Gustafson" <
> ja...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought the argument was against creating the extra
> objects
> > > unnecessarily
> > > (i.e. if they were not accessed). And note that making
> the
> > Headers
> > > immutable doesn't necessarily mean that they need to
be
> > copied:
> > > you can do
> > > a trick like Guava's Iterables.concat to add
additional
> > headers
> > > without
> > > changing the underlying collections.
> > >
> > > -Jason
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Michael Pearce <
> > > michael.pea...@ig.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If the argument for not having a map holding the
> key, value
> > > pairs is due
> > > > to garbage creation of HashMap entry's, forcing the
> > creation of
> > > a whole new
> > > > producer record to simply add a head, surely is
> creating
> > a-lot
> > > more?
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > > From: Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 10:09 PM
> > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-82 - Add Record Headers
> > > >
> > > > The current producer interceptor API is this:
> > > >
> > > > ProducerRecord<K, V> onSend(ProducerRecord<K, V>
> record);
> > > >
> > > > So adding a header means creating a new
> ProducerRecord
> > with a
> > > new header
> > > > added to the current headers and returning it. Would
> that
> > not
> > > work?
> > > >
> > > > -Jason
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Michael Pearce <
> > > michael.pea...@ig.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So how would you have this work if not mutable
> where
> > > interceptors would
> > > > > add headers?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent using OWA for iPhone
> > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > From: Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 8:42:27 PM
> > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-82 - Add Record Headers
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the point on the mutability of Headers is
> worth
> > > discussing a
> > > > little
> > > > > more. As far as I can tell, once the
> ProducerRecord (or
> > > ConsumerRecord)
> > > > is
> > > > > constructed, there should be no need to further
> change
> > the
> > > headers. Is
> > > > that
> > > > > correct? If so, then why not enforce that that is
> the
> > case
> > > through the
> > > > API?
> > > > > One problem with mutability it that it constrains
> the
> > > implementation of
> > > > > Headers. For example, if we were backing with a
> byte
> > slice,
> > > would we
> > > > recopy
> > > > > the bytes if a header is added or would we
> maintain a
> > satellite
> > > > collection
> > > > > of added records. Seems not great either way. If
we
> > really
> > > think
> > > > mutability
> > > > > is needed, perhaps we could add a method to
> headers to
> > convert
> > > it to a
> > > > > mutable type (e.g. a Headers.toMap)?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm also with Ismael about exposing Headers.get().
> I
> > thought
> > > it might
> > > > make
> > > > > sense to have a method like this instead:
> > > > >
> > > > > Iterable<Header> findMatching(Pattern pattern);
> > > > >
> > > > > This makes the (potential) need to scan the
headers
> > clear in
> > > the API. I'd
> > > > > also be fine exposing no getter at all. In
> general, Ï
> > think
> > > it's good to
> > > > > start with a minimalistic API and work from there
> since
> > it's
> > > always
> > > > easier
> > > > > to add methods than remove them.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Jason
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Michael Pearce <
> > > michael.pea...@ig.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Ismael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On point 1,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure makes sense will update shortly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On point 2,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Setter/getter typical to properties/headers
api’s
> > > traditionally are map
> > > > > > styled interfaces and what I believe is most
> expected
> > styled
> > > thus the
> > > > > Key,
> > > > > > Value setter.
> > > > > > Also it would mean rather than an interface, we
> would
> > be
> > > making our
> > > > > > internal header impl object we have for the
> array,
> > exposed.
> > > E.g. if we
> > > > > had
> > > > > > a Map really this would be Map.Entry interface,
> this
> > is the
> > > same
> > > > reasons
> > > > > on
> > > > > > the map interface I cannot actually make the
> > underlying Node
> > > object
> > > > > that’s
> > > > > > the implementation for HashMap, so that
> internals can
> > be
> > > changed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On point 3,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it people do expect it to be performant,
> thus
> > why
> > > originally
> > > > > > concern I raised with using an array for to me
> is an
> > early
> > > memory
> > > > > > optimisation. I think the user experience of
> > > properties/headers is on a
> > > > > > get/set model. This is why its important we have
> > > encapsulated logic
> > > > that
> > > > > > then allows us to change this to a map, if this
> > becomes and
> > > issue, and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > memory overhead of hashmap is less so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 22/02/2017, 15:56, "isma...@gmail.com on
> behalf of
> > > Ismael Juma" <
> > > > > > isma...@gmail.com on behalf of ism...@juma.me.uk
> >
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Great to see the progress that has been
> achieved
> > on this
> > > one. :) A
> > > > > few
> > > > > > comments regarding the APIs (I'm still
> reviewing
> > the
> > > message format
> > > > > > changes):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Nit: `getHeaders` in `ProducerRecord` and
> > > `ConsumerRecord`
> > > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > named `headers` (we avoid the `get` prefix
in
> > Kafka)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. The `Headers` class is mutable (there's
> an `add`
> > > method). Does
> > > > it
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > to be? If so, it would be good to explain
> why.
> > Related
> > > to that, we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > also explain the thinking around
> thread-safety. If
> > we
> > > keep the
> > > > `add`
> > > > > > method, it may make sense for it to take a
> `Header`
> > > (that way we
> > > > can
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > things to `Header` without changing the
> interface).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Do we need the `Headers.get()` method?
> People
> > usually
> > > assume
> > > > that
> > > > > > `get`
> > > > > > would be efficient, but depending on the
> > implementation
> > > (the
> > > > current
> > > > > > proposal states that an array would be
> used), it
> > may not
> > > be. If we
> > > > > > expect
> > > > > > the number of headers to be small, it
doesn't
> > matter
> > > though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Michael
> Pearce <
> > > > > michael.pea...@ig.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Jason,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have converted the interface/api bullets
> into
> > > interface code
> > > > > > snippets.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed implementation won’t take too long.
> We
> > have
> > > early versions
> > > > > > already.
> > > > > > > Maybe a week before you think about
> merging I
> > would
> > > assume it
> > > > would
> > > > > > be more
> > > > > > > stabilised? I was thinking then we could
> fork
> > from
> > > your confluent
> > > > > > branch,
> > > > > > > making and then holding KIP-82 changes in
> a patch
> > > file, that we
> > > > can
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > re-fork from apache once KIP98 final is
> merged,
> > and
> > > apply patch
> > > > > with
> > > > > > last
> > > > > > > minute changes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 22/02/2017, 00:56, "Jason Gustafson" <
> > > ja...@confluent.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey Michael,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Awesome. I have a minor request. The
> APIs are
> > > currently
> > > > > > documented as a
> > > > > > > wiki list. Would you mind adding a
code
> > snippet
> > > instead?
> > > > It's a
> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > to process.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How will be best to manage this, as we
> will
> > > obviously build
> > > > off
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > KIP’s
> > > > > > > > protocol changes, to avoid a merge
> hell,
> > should
> > > we branch
> > > > > from
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > branch
> > > > > > > > in the confluent repo or is it worth
> > having a
> > > KIP-98
> > > > special
> > > > > > branch
> > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > apache git, that we can branch/fork
> from?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was thinking about this also.
> Ideally we'd
> > like
> > > to get the
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > in as
> > > > > > > close together as possible since we
> only
> > want one
> > > magic bump
> > > > > and
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > users
> > > > > > > deploy trunk. The level of effort to
> change
> > the
> > > format for
> > > > > > headers
> > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > not too high. Do you agree? My guess
> is that
> > the
> > > KIP-98
> > > > message
> > > > > > format
> > > > > > > patch will take 2-3 weeks to review
> before we
> > > merge to trunk,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > hold off implementing until that patch
> has
> > somewhat
> > > > stabilized.
> > > > > > That
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > save some potential rebase pain.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Jason
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
>
>
> 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.
