@Colin Yes you are right I'll update the KIP-204 mentioning the related ACL permission DELETE on TOPIC
@Dong @Ismael Considering future improvements on this, it makes sense to me using a class instead of a Long. Maybe the name could be just "DeleteRecords" (as "NewPartitions") having a deleteBefore(Long) factory method for a simple creation when you need to delete before the specified offset. 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: Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 3:58 PM To: dev@kafka.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API Having a class there makes sense to me. It also helps clarify what the Long represents (a record offset). regards, Colin On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 06:19, Dong Lin wrote: > Sure. This makes sense. I agree it is better to replace Long with a new > class. > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:16 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > Hi Dong, > > > > Yes, I mean replacing the `Long` with a class in the map. The class would > > have static factory methods for the various use cases. To use the > > `createPartitions` example, there is a `NewPartitions.increaseTo` method. > > > > Not sure why you think it's too complicated. It provides better type > > safety, it's more informative and makes it easier to evolve. Thankfully > > Java has lambdas for a while now and mapping a collection from one type to > > another is reasonably simple. > > > > Your suggestion doesn't work because both methods would have the same > > "erased" signature. You can't have two overloaded methods that have the > > same signature apart from generic parameters. Also, we'd end up with 2 > > methods in AdminClient. > > > > Ismael > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hey Ismael, > > > > > > To clarify, I think you are saying that we should replace > > > "deleteRecords(Map<TopicPartition, Long> partitionsAndOffsets)" with > > > "deleteRecords(Map<TopicPartition, DeleteRecordsParameter> > > > partitionsAndOffsets)", where DeleteRecordsParameter should be include a > > > "Long value", and probably "Boolean isBeforeOrAfter" and "Boolean > > > isOffsetOrTime" in the future. > > > > > > I get the point that we want to only include additional parameter > > > in DeleteRecordsOptions. I just feel it is a bit overkill to have a new > > > class DeleteRecordsParameter which will only support offset in the near > > > future. This method signature seems a bit too complicated. > > > > > > How about we use deleteRecords(Map<TopicPartition, Long> > > > partitionsAndOffsets) for now, and add deleteRecords(Map<TopicPartition, > > > DeleteRecordsParameter> partitionsAndOffsets) when we need to support > > core > > > parameter in the future? By doing this we can make user's experience > > better > > > (i.e. not having to instantiate DeleteRecordsParameter) until it is > > > necessary to be more complicated. > > > > > > Dong > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
