It is agreed, then. I've updated the pull request. I'm trying to also update the KIP accordingly, but cwiki is being slow and dropping connections..... I'll try again a bit later but please consider the KIP updated for all intents and purposes. heh.
On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > That makes sense. > > > Guozhang > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> wrote: > > > Interesting. I'm not sure I agree. I've been bitten many times by > > unintentionally shipping code that fails to properly implement logging. I > > always discover this at the exact *worst* moment, too. (Normally at 3 AM > > during an on-call shift. Hah.) However, if others feel the same way I > could > > probably be convinced to remove it. > > > > We could also meet halfway and say that when a customized > > ProductionExceptionHandler instructs Streams to CONTINUE, we log at DEBUG > > level instead of WARN level. Would that alternative be appealing to you? > > > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:32 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the updates. I made a pass over the wiki again and it looks > > > good. > > > > > > About whether record collector should still internally log the error in > > > addition to what the customized ProductionExceptionHandler does. I > > > personally would prefer only to log if the returned value is FAIL to > > > indicate that this thread is going to shutdown and trigger the > exception > > > handler. > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, a bit later than I'd anticipated, but I've updated this KIP as > > > > outlined above. The updated KIP is now ready for review again! > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 1:03 PM Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ah. I actually created both of those in the PR and forgot to > mention > > > them > > > > > by name in the KIP! Thanks for pointing out the oversight. > > > > > > > > > > I’ll revise the KIP this afternoon accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > The logging is actually provided for in the record collector. > > Whenever > > > a > > > > > handler continues it’ll log a warning to ensure that it’s > > *impossible* > > > to > > > > > write a handler that totally suppresses production exceptions from > > the > > > > log. > > > > > As such, the default continue handler just returns the continue > > value. > > > I > > > > > can add details about those semantics to the KIP as well. > > > > > On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:46 PM Matthias J. Sax < > > matth...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> One more comment. > > > > >> > > > > >> You mention a default implementation for the handler that fails. I > > > > >> think, this should be part of the public API and thus should have > a > > > > >> proper defined named that is mentioned in the KIP. > > > > >> > > > > >> We could also add a second implementation for the log-and-move-on > > > > >> strategy, as both are the two most common cases. This class should > > > also > > > > >> be part of public API (so users can just set in the config) with a > > > > >> proper name. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Otherwise, I like the KIP a lot! Thanks. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -Matthias > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On 11/1/17 12:23 AM, Matt Farmer wrote: > > > > >> > Thanks for the heads up. Yes, I think my changes are compatible > > with > > > > >> that > > > > >> > PR, but there will be a merge conflict that happens whenever one > > of > > > > the > > > > >> PRs > > > > >> > is merged. Happy to reconcile the changes in my PR if 4148 goes > in > > > > >> first. :) > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 6:44 PM Guozhang Wang < > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> That sounds reasonable, thanks Matt. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> As for the implementation, please note that there is another > > > ongoing > > > > PR > > > > >> >> that may touch the same classes that you are working on: > > > > >> >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4148 > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> So it may help if you can also take a look at that PR and see > if > > it > > > > is > > > > >> >> compatible with your changes. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Guozhang > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >>> I've opened this pull request to implement the KIP as > currently > > > > >> written: > > > > >> >>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4165. It still needs > some > > > > tests > > > > >> >>> added, > > > > >> >>> but largely represents the shape I was going for. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> If there are more points that folks would like to discuss, > > please > > > > let > > > > >> me > > > > >> >>> know. If I don't hear anything by tomorrow afternoon I'll > > probably > > > > >> start > > > > >> >> a > > > > >> >>> [VOTE] thread. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> Thanks, > > > > >> >>> Matt > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:33 PM Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> > > wrote: > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>>> I can’t think of a reason that would be problematic. > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> Most of the time I would write a handler like this, I either > > want > > > > to > > > > >> >>>> ignore the error or fail and bring everything down so that I > > can > > > > spin > > > > >> >> it > > > > >> >>>> back up later and resume from earlier offsets. When we start > up > > > > after > > > > >> >>>> crashing we’ll eventually try to process the message we > failed > > to > > > > >> >> produce > > > > >> >>>> again. > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> I’m concerned that “putting in a queue for later” opens you > up > > to > > > > >> >> putting > > > > >> >>>> messages into the destination topic in an unexpected order. > > > However > > > > >> if > > > > >> >>>> others feel differently, I’m happy to talk about it. > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:10 PM Guozhang Wang < > > > wangg...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is > that > > > the > > > > >> >>> record > > > > >> >>>>>> metadata is always null if an exception occurred while > trying > > > to > > > > >> >>>>> produce. > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> That is right. Thanks. > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> I looked at the example code, and one thing I realized that > > > since > > > > we > > > > >> >> are > > > > >> >>>>> not passing the context in the handle function, we may not > be > > > > >> >> implement > > > > >> >>>>> the > > > > >> >>>>> logic to send the fail records into another queue for future > > > > >> >> processing. > > > > >> >>>>> Would people think that would be a big issue? > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> Guozhang > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> Hello all, > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> I've updated the KIP based on this conversation, and made > it > > so > > > > >> that > > > > >> >>> its > > > > >> >>>>>> interface, config setting, and parameters line up more > > closely > > > > with > > > > >> >>> the > > > > >> >>>>>> interface in KIP-161 (deserialization handler). > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> I believe there are a few specific questions I need to > reply > > > > >> to..... > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>> The question I had about then handle parameters are around > > the > > > > >> >>> record, > > > > >> >>>>>>> should it be `ProducerRecord<byte[], byte[]>`, or be > > generics > > > of > > > > >> >>>>>>> `ProducerRecord<? extends K, ? extends V>` or > > > `ProducerRecord<? > > > > >> >>>>> extends > > > > >> >>>>>>> Object, ? extends Object>`? > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> At this point in the code we're guaranteed that this is a > > > > >> >>>>>> ProducerRecord<byte[], byte[]>, so the generics would just > > make > > > > it > > > > >> >>>>> harder > > > > >> >>>>>> to work with the key and value. > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>> Also, should the handle function include the > > `RecordMetadata` > > > as > > > > >> >>> well > > > > >> >>>>> in > > > > >> >>>>>>> case it is not null? > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is > that > > > the > > > > >> >>> record > > > > >> >>>>>> metadata is always null if an exception occurred while > trying > > > to > > > > >> >>>>> produce. > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>> We may probably try to write down at least the following > > > > handling > > > > >> >>>>> logic > > > > >> >>>>>> and > > > > >> >>>>>>> see if the given API is sufficient for it > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> I've added some examples to the KIP. Let me know what you > > > think. > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> Cheers, > > > > >> >>>>>> Matt > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:00 PM Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>> Thanks for this feedback. I’m at a conference right now > and > > am > > > > >> >>>>> planning > > > > >> >>>>>> on > > > > >> >>>>>>> updating the KIP again with details from this conversation > > > later > > > > >> >>> this > > > > >> >>>>>> week. > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>> I’ll shoot you a more detailed response then! :) > > > > >> >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 8:16 PM Guozhang Wang < > > > > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP Matt. > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Regarding the handle interface of > > > > ProductionExceptionHandlerResp > > > > >> >>> onse, > > > > >> >>>>>>>> could > > > > >> >>>>>>>> you write it on the wiki also, along with the actual > added > > > > config > > > > >> >>>>> names > > > > >> >>>>>>>> (e.g. what > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > 161%3A+streams+ > > > > >> >>>>>> deserialization+exception+handlers > > > > >> >>>>>>>> described). > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> The question I had about then handle parameters are > around > > > the > > > > >> >>>>> record, > > > > >> >>>>>>>> should it be `ProducerRecord<byte[], byte[]>`, or be > > generics > > > > of > > > > >> >>>>>>>> `ProducerRecord<? extends K, ? extends V>` or > > > `ProducerRecord<? > > > > >> >>>>> extends > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Object, ? extends Object>`? > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Also, should the handle function include the > > `RecordMetadata` > > > > as > > > > >> >>>>> well in > > > > >> >>>>>>>> case it is not null? > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> We may probably try to write down at least the following > > > > handling > > > > >> >>>>> logic > > > > >> >>>>>>>> and > > > > >> >>>>>>>> see if the given API is sufficient for it: 1) throw > > exception > > > > >> >>>>>> immediately > > > > >> >>>>>>>> to fail fast and stop the world, 2) log the error and > drop > > > > record > > > > >> >>> and > > > > >> >>>>>>>> proceed silently, 3) send such errors to a specific > "error" > > > > Kafka > > > > >> >>>>> topic, > > > > >> >>>>>>>> or > > > > >> >>>>>>>> record it as an app-level metrics ( > > > > >> >>>>>>>> https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#kafka_streams_ > > > > monitoring > > > > >> >> ) > > > > >> >>>>> for > > > > >> >>>>>>>> monitoring. > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Guozhang > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Matt Farmer < > m...@frmr.me > > > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> I did some more digging tonight. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> @Ted: It looks like the deserialization handler uses > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> "default.deserialization.exception.handler" for the > > config > > > > >> >>> name. No > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> ".class" on the end. I'm inclined to think this should > use > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> "default.production.exception.handler". > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:22 PM Matt Farmer < > m...@frmr.me > > > > > > > >> >>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Okay, I've dug into this a little bit. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I think getting access to the serialized record is > > > possible, > > > > >> >>> and > > > > >> >>>>>>>> changing > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> the naming and return type is certainly doable. > However, > > > > >> >>> because > > > > >> >>>>>> we're > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> hooking into the onCompletion callback we have no > > guarantee > > > > >> >>> that > > > > >> >>>>> the > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> ProcessorContext state hasn't changed by the time this > > > > >> >>> particular > > > > >> >>>>>>>> handler > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> runs. So I think the signature would change to > something > > > > >> >> like: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> ProductionExceptionHandlerResponse handle(final > > > > >> >>>>> ProducerRecord<..> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> record, > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> final Exception exception) > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Would this be acceptable? > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 7:33 PM Matt Farmer < > > m...@frmr.me> > > > > >> >>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Ah good idea. Hmmm. I can line up the naming and > return > > > type > > > > >> >>> but > > > > >> >>>>>> I’m > > > > >> >>>>>>>> not > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> sure if I can get my hands on the context and the > record > > > > >> >>> itself > > > > >> >>>>>>>> without > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> other changes. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Let me dig in and follow up here tomorrow. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 7:14 PM Matthias J. Sax < > > > > >> >>>>>>>> matth...@confluent.io> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you familiar with KIP-161? > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > 161%3A+streams+ > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> deserialization+exception+handlers > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I thinks, we should align the design (parameter > naming, > > > > >> >>> return > > > > >> >>>>>>>> types, > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> class names etc) of KIP-210 to KIP-161 to get a > unified > > > > >> >> user > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> experience. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/17 4:20 PM, Matt Farmer wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll create the JIRA ticket. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that config name will work. I’ll update the > > KIP > > > > >> >>>>>>>> accordingly. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:09 PM Ted Yu < > > > > >> >>> yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you create JIRA that corresponds to the KIP ? > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the new config, how about naming it > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> production.exception.processor.class > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? This way it is clear that class name should be > > > > >> >>> specified. > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Matt Farmer < > > > > >> >>> m...@frmr.me> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone, > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the discussion thread for the KIP that I > > just > > > > >> >>> filed > > > > >> >>>>>>>> here: > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 210+-+Provide+for+custom+ > > error+handling++when+Kafka+ > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams+fails+to+produce > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to getting some feedback from > folks > > > > >> >> about > > > > >> >>>>> this > > > > >> >>>>>>>> idea > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> and > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working toward a solution we can contribute back. > :) > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Farmer > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>>> -- > > > > >> >>>>>>>> -- Guozhang > > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>>> -- > > > > >> >>>>> -- Guozhang > > > > >> >>>>> > > > > >> >>>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> -- > > > > >> >> -- Guozhang > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang >
