Hey, Sorry for the late follow up. I just had a couple of minor questions about details:
* Some of the public API being added is under a runtime package. But that would be new for public API -- currently only things under the runtime package use that package name. I think changing the package name to just be under o.a.k.connect.rest or something like that would better keep this distinction clear and would also help shorten it a bit -- the packages are getting quite deeply nested with some of the new naming. * The cluster state classes probably shouldn't be under a rest package. That's where we're exposing them for public APIs currently, but it's not really specific to REST stuff in any way. I think we should house those somewhere more generic so they won't be awkward to reuse if we decided to (e.g. you could imagine extensions that provide this directly for metrics. * Currently we have the State classes nested inside ConnectorHealth class. I think this makes those classes more annoying to use. Is there a reason for them to be nested or can we just pull them out to the same level as ConnectorHealth? -Ewen On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:30 AM Magesh Nandakumar <mage...@confluent.io> wrote: > Randall- I think I have addressed all the comments. Let me know if we can > take this to Vote. > > Thanks > Magesh > > On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Magesh Nandakumar <mage...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I have updated the KIP to reflect changes based on the PR > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4931. Its mostly has minor changes > > to the interfaces and includes details on packages for the interfaces and > > the classes. Let me know your thoughts. > > > > Thanks > > Magesh > > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Great work, Magesh. I like the overall approach a lot, so I left some > >> pretty nuanced comments about specific details. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Randall > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Magesh Nandakumar < > mage...@confluent.io> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks Randall for your thoughts. I have created a replica of the > >> required > >> > entities in the draft implementation. If you can take a look at the PR > >> and > >> > let me know your thoughts, I will update the KIP to reflect the same > >> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4931 > >> > > >> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Magesh, I think our last emails cross in mid-stream. > >> > > > >> > > We definitely want to put the new public interfaces/classes in the > API > >> > > module, and implementation in the runtime module. Yes, this will > >> affect > >> > the > >> > > design, since for example we don't want to expose runtime types to > the > >> > API, > >> > > and we want to prevent breaking changes. We don't really want to > move > >> the > >> > > REST entities if we don't have to, since that may break projects > that > >> are > >> > > extending the runtime module -- even though the runtime module is > not > >> a > >> > > public API we still want to _try_ to change things. > >> > > > >> > > Do you want to try to create a prototype to see what kind of impact > >> and > >> > > choices we'll have to make? > >> > > > >> > > Best regards, > >> > > > >> > > Randall > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks for updating the KIP, Magesh. You've resolved all of my > >> > concerns, > >> > > > though I have one more: we should specify the package names for > all > >> new > >> > > > interfaces/classes. > >> > > > > >> > > > I'm looking forward to more feedback from others. > >> > > > > >> > > > Best regards, > >> > > > > >> > > > Randall > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Magesh Nandakumar < > >> > > mage...@confluent.io> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> Hi All, > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I have updated the KIP with following changes > >> > > >> > >> > > >> 1. Expanded the Motivation section > >> > > >> 2. Included details about the interface in the public > interface > >> > > section > >> > > >> 3. Modified the config name to rest.extension.classes > >> > > >> 4. Modified the ConnectRestExtension to include Configurable > >> > instead > >> > > of > >> > > >> ResourceConfig > >> > > >> 5. Modified the "Rest Extension Integration with Connect" in > >> > > "Proposed > >> > > >> Approach" to include a new Custom implementation for > >> Configurable > >> > > >> 6. Provided examples for the Java Service provider mechanism > >> > > >> 7. Included a reference implementation in scope > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Kindly let me know your thoughts on the updates. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks > >> > > >> Magesh > >> > > >> > >> > > >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Magesh Nandakumar < > >> > > mage...@confluent.io > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Hi Randall, > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks for your feedback. I also would like to go with > >> > > >> > rest.extension.classes`. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > For exposing Configurable, my original intention was just to > >> expose > >> > > that > >> > > >> > to the extension because that's all one needs to register JAX > RS > >> > > >> resources. > >> > > >> > The fact that we use Jersey shouldn't even be exposed in the > >> > > interface. > >> > > >> > Hence it doesn't affect the public API by any means. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I will update the KIP and let everyone know. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > > >> > Magesh > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Randall Hauch < > rha...@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Magesh Nandakumar < > >> > > >> mage...@confluent.io > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > Hi Randall, > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > Thanks a lot for your feedback. > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > I will update the KIP to reflect your comments in (1), (2), > >> (7) > >> > and > >> > > >> (8). > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Looking forward to these. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > For comment # (3) , while it would be great to automatically > >> > > >> configure > >> > > >> >> the > >> > > >> >> > Rest Extensions, I would prefer that to be specified > >> explicitly. > >> > > Lets > >> > > >> >> > assume a connector archive includes a implementation for the > >> > > >> >> RestExtension > >> > > >> >> > to do authentication using some header. We don't want this > to > >> be > >> > > >> >> > automatically included. Having said that I think that the > >> config > >> > > key > >> > > >> >> name > >> > > >> >> > should probably be changed to something like > "rest.extension" > >> or > >> > > >> >> > "rest.extension.class". > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> That's a good point. I do like `rest.extension.class` (or > >> > > `..classes`?) > >> > > >> >> much more than `rest.plugins`. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > For the comment regarding the resource loading into jersey, > I > >> > have > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> >> > following proposal > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > Create an implementation of Configurable( > >> > > >> >> > > https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/ws/rs/core/Config > >> > > >> urable.html > >> > > >> >> ) > >> > > >> >> > that delegates to ResourceConfig. In the > >> ConnectRestExtension, we > >> > > >> would > >> > > >> >> > expose only Configurable which is sufficient enough to > >> register > >> > new > >> > > >> >> > resources. In the new implementation, we will check if the > >> > resource > >> > > >> is > >> > > >> >> > already registered using ResourceConfig.isRegistered() > method > >> and > >> > > >> log a > >> > > >> >> > warning if the resource is already registered. This will > make > >> it > >> > a > >> > > >> >> > deterministic behavior and avoid any potential > >> re-registrations. > >> > > Let > >> > > >> me > >> > > >> >> > know your thoughts on these. > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> This sounds a good idea. Is it as flexible as the current > >> proposal? > >> > > If > >> > > >> >> not, > >> > > >> >> then I'd love to see how this affects the public APIs. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > Thanks > >> > > >> >> > Magesh > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Randall Hauch < > >> > rha...@gmail.com> > >> > > >> >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > Very nice proposal, Magesh. I like the approach and the > new > >> > > >> concepts > >> > > >> >> and > >> > > >> >> > > interfaces, but I do have a few comments/suggestions about > >> some > >> > > >> >> specific > >> > > >> >> > > details: > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > 1. In the "Motivation" section, perhaps it makes sense > to > >> > > >> briefly > >> > > >> >> > > describe one or two somewhat concrete examples of how > >> this > >> > is > >> > > >> >> useful. > >> > > >> >> > > 2. Maybe in the "Public Interfaces" section you could > >> > briefly > >> > > >> >> describe > >> > > >> >> > > each of the interfaces, what they represent, and which > >> are > >> > > >> >> implemented > >> > > >> >> > > by > >> > > >> >> > > the framework vs implemented by an extension. I think > >> it'd > >> > > help > >> > > >> to > >> > > >> >> > > explain > >> > > >> >> > > that only the `ConnectRestPlugin` needs to be > >> implemented, > >> > and > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> >> > rest > >> > > >> >> > > will be provided by the framework. I know the next > >> section > >> > > goes > >> > > >> >> into > >> > > >> >> > it > >> > > >> >> > > a > >> > > >> >> > > bit, but it'd be useful in this section when first > >> talking > >> > > about > >> > > >> >> the > >> > > >> >> > new > >> > > >> >> > > interfaces. > >> > > >> >> > > 3. Also in the "Public Interfaces" section: I don't > >> think we > >> > > >> should > >> > > >> >> > > introduce a "rest.plugins" configuration property. > >> Instead, > >> > > can > >> > > >> we > >> > > >> >> not > >> > > >> >> > > just > >> > > >> >> > > instantiate and call all of the ConnectRestPlugins that > >> we > >> > > find > >> > > >> on > >> > > >> >> the > >> > > >> >> > > plugin path? Besides, it seems too close to the > >> > `plugin.path` > >> > > >> >> > > configuration > >> > > >> >> > > property. > >> > > >> >> > > 4. Why would the implementation register Connect > >> resources > >> > > >> *after* > >> > > >> >> the > >> > > >> >> > > plugins, if Jersey currently registers only the first > >> one? > >> > The > >> > > >> >> > "Rejected > >> > > >> >> > > Alternatives" mentions why, but this section should be > >> > > explicit > >> > > >> >> about > >> > > >> >> > > why. > >> > > >> >> > > For example, "The plugin's would be registered in the > >> > > >> >> > > RestServer.start(Herder herder) method before > registering > >> > the > >> > > >> >> default > >> > > >> >> > > Connect resources, which ensures that plugins cannot > >> remove > >> > > >> Connect > >> > > >> >> > > resources." > >> > > >> >> > > 5. "Hence, it is recommended that the plugins don't > >> > > re-register > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> >> > > default Connect Resources. This could potentially lead > to > >> > > >> >> unexpected > >> > > >> >> > > errors." First, we should not say "recommended" and > >> should > >> > > just > >> > > >> say > >> > > >> >> > > plugins > >> > > >> >> > > should not register any resources that conflict with > the > >> > > >> built-in > >> > > >> >> > > Connect > >> > > >> >> > > resources. Second, if the worker does find conflicts, > >> can we > >> > > >> just > >> > > >> >> > remove > >> > > >> >> > > them before adding the built-in Connect resources? > >> > > >> >> > > 6. Is it possible for implementations to check whether > >> > > resources > >> > > >> >> > already > >> > > >> >> > > exist before registering their own? If so, we should > >> > recommend > >> > > >> that > >> > > >> >> > > implementations do this and log any problems. > >> > > >> >> > > 7. We should be explicit that the "Service Provider" is > >> > Java's > >> > > >> >> Service > >> > > >> >> > > Provider API. We also need to be explicit that an > >> > > implementation > >> > > >> >> must > >> > > >> >> > > provide a `META-INF/services/org.apache.kafka.connect. > >> > > >> >> > > ConnectRestPlugin` > >> > > >> >> > > file (or whatever the package name of the > >> > `ConnectRestPlugin` > >> > > >> will > >> > > >> >> be) > >> > > >> >> > > with > >> > > >> >> > > the fully-qualified name of the implementation > class(es). > >> > > >> >> > > 8. The example should include the META-INF file > required > >> by > >> > > the > >> > > >> >> > Service > >> > > >> >> > > Provider API. > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > Again, overall this is really great! > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > Best regards, > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > Randall > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:14 AM, Magesh Nandakumar < > >> > > >> >> > mage...@confluent.io> > >> > > >> >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > > Hi, > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > We have posted KIP-285: Connect Rest Extension Plugin to > >> add > >> > > the > >> > > >> >> > ability > >> > > >> >> > > to > >> > > >> >> > > > provide Rest Extensions to Connect Rest API. > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > >> > > >> >> > > > 285%3A+Connect+Rest+Extension+Plugin > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > Please take a look. Your feedback is appreciated. > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > Magesh > >> > > >> >> > > > > >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
