Hi Paolo, Thanks for the KIP and sorry for being late on the thread. I am wondering what is the KafkaFuture<Long> returned by all() call? Should it be a Map<TopicPartition, Long> instead?
Thanks, Jiangjie (Becket) QIn On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:48 AM, Paolo Patierno <ppatie...@live.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > maybe we want to start without the delete records policy for now waiting > for a real needs. So I'm removing it from the KIP. > > I hope for more comments on this KIP-204 so that we can start a vote on > Monday. > > > Thanks. > > > Paolo Patierno > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT > Microsoft Azure Advisor > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/> > > > ________________________________ > From: Paolo Patierno <ppatie...@live.com> > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 5:56 AM > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the > new Admin Client API > > Hi, > > > I have just updated the KIP-204 description with the new > TopicDeletionPolicy suggested by the KIP-201. > > > Paolo Patierno > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT > Microsoft Azure Advisor > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/> > > > ________________________________ > From: Paolo Patierno <ppatie...@live.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 4:57 PM > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the > new Admin Client API > > Hi Tom, > > as I said in the KIP-201 discussion I'm ok with having a unique > DeleteTopicPolicy but then it could be useful having more information then > just the topic name; partitions and offset for messages deletion could be > useful for a fine grained use cases. > > > Paolo Patierno > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT > Microsoft Azure Advisor > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/> > > > ________________________________ > From: Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 4:32 PM > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the > new Admin Client API > > Hi Paolo, > > I guess a RecordDeletionPolicy should work at the partition level, whereas > the TopicDeletionPolicy should work at the topic level. But then we run > into a similar situation as described in the motivation for KIP-201, where > the administrator might have to write+configure two policies in order to > express their intended rules. For example, it's no good preventing people > from deleting topics if they can delete all the messages in those topics, > or vice versa. > > On that reasoning, perhaps there should be a single policy interface > covering topic deletion and message deletion. Alternatively, the topic > deletion API could also invoke the record deletion policy (before the topic > deletion policy I mean). But the former would be more consistent with > what's proposed in KIP-201. > > Wdyt? I can add this to KIP-201 if you want. > > Cheers, > > Tom > > > > > > On 26 September 2017 at 17:01, Paolo Patierno <ppatie...@live.com> wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > I think that we could live with the current authorizer based on delete > > topic (for both, deleting messages and topic as a whole) but then the > > RecordsDeletePolicy could be even more fine grained giving the > possibility > > to avoid deleting messages for specific partitions (inside the topic) and > > starting from a specific offset. > > > > I could think on some users solutions where they know exactly what the > > partitions means inside of a specific topic (because they are using a > > custom partitioner on the producer side) so they know what kind of > messages > > are inside a partition allowing to delete them but not the other. > > > > In such a policy a user could also check the timestamp related to the > > offset for allowing or not deletion on time base. > > > > > > Wdyt ? > > > > > > Paolo Patierno > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT > > Microsoft Azure Advisor > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/> > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 2:55 PM > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the > > new Admin Client API > > > > Hi Edoardo and Paolo, > > > > > > On 26 September 2017 at 14:10, Paolo Patierno <ppatie...@live.com> > wrote: > > > > > What could be useful use cases for having a RecordsDeletePolicy ? > Records > > > can't be deleted for a topic name ? Starting from a specific offset ? > > > > > > > I can imagine some users wanting to prohibit using this API completely. > > Maybe others divide up the topic namespace according to some scheme, and > so > > it would be allowed for some topics, but not for others based on the > name. > > Both these could be done using authz, but would be much simpler to > express > > using a policy. > > > > Since both deleting messages and deleting topics are authorized using > > delete operation on the topic, using policies it would be possible to > allow > > deleting messages from a topic, but not deleting the topic itself. > > > > > > On 26 September 2017 at 15:27, Edoardo Comar <eco...@uk.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Our KIP-170 did indeed suggest a TopicDeletePolicy - but, as said, for > > our > > > intent an Authorizer implementation will be usable instead, > > > > > > > I guess authorization in the most general sense encompass es both the > > ACL-based authorization inherent in Authorizer and the various > > operation-specific *Policies. But they're not the same. The Policies are > > about deciding on *what* is requested, and the Authorizer is about > making a > > decision purely on *who* is making the request. It's quite legitimate to > > want to use both, or just one or the other. > > >
