Hi Dong, I think it makes sense to use the parameters to define the specifics of the request. However, we would probably want to replace the `Long` with a class (similar to `createPartitions`) instead of relying on `DeleteRecordsOptions`. The latter is typically used for defining additional options, not for defining the core behaviour.
Ismael On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Colin, > > I have also thought about deleteRecordsBeforeOffset so that we can keep the > name consistent with the existing API in the Scala AdminClient. But then I > think it may be better to be able to specify in DeleteRecordsOptions > whether the deletion is before/after timestamp or offset. By doing this we > have one API rather than four API in Java AdminClient going forward. What > do you think? > > Thanks, > Dong > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Paolo, > > > > This is a nice improvement. > > > > I agree that the discussion of creating a DeleteTopicPolicy can wait > > until later. Perhaps we can do it in a follow-on KIP. However, we do > > need to specify what ACL permissions are needed to invoke this API. > > That should be in the JavaDoc comments as well. Based on the previous > > discussion, I am assuming that this means DELETE on the TOPIC resource? > > Can you add this to the KIP? > > > > Right now you have the signature: > > > DeleteRecordsResult deleteRecords(Map<TopicPartition, Long> > > partitionsAndOffsets) > > > > Since this function is all about deleting records that come before a > > certain offset, how about calling it deleteRecordsBeforeOffset? That > > way, if we come up with another way of deleting records in the future > > (such as a timestamp or transaction-based way) it will not be confusing. > > > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, at 20:50, Becket Qin wrote: > > > 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? > > > > Good point. > > > > cheers, > > Colin > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > >
