Hi Viktor,
The shell command isn’t that easy to integrate into applications.
AdminClient will get integrated into a lot more stuff, which
increases the potential for conflicts. I would argue that we should
fix this soon.
If we do want to reduce the scope in this KIP, we could do the merge in
the ConfigCommand tool for now, and leave AC unchanged.
Best,
Colin
On Wed, May 16, 2018, at 04:57, Viktor Somogyi wrote:
> Hi Colin,
>
> > Doing get-merge-set is buggy, though. If someone else does get-merge-
> > set at the same time as you, you might overwrite that person's
> > changes, or vice versa. So I really don't think we should try to do
> > this. Also, having both an incremental and a full API is useful,
> > and it's just a single boolean at the protocol and API level.>
> Overwriting somebody's change is currently possible with the
> ConfigCommand, as it will do this get-merge-set behavior on the client> side,
> in the command. From this perspective I think it's not much
> different to do this with the admin client. Also I think admins don't> modify
> the quotas/configs of a client/user/topic/broker often (and
> multiple admins would do it even more rarely), so I don't think it is> a big
> issue. What I think would be useful here but may be out of scope> is to
> version the changes similarly to leader epochs. So when an admin> updates the
> configs, it will increment a version number and won't let> other admins to
> push changes in with lower than that. Instead it would> return an error.
>
> I would be also interested what others think about this?
>
> Cheers,
> Viktor
>
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Colin McCabe
> <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:> > On Wed, May 9, 2018, at 05:41, Viktor Somogyi
> wrote:
> >> Hi Colin,
> >>
> >> > We are going to need to create a new version of
> >> > AlterConfigsRequest to add the "incremental" boolean. So while
> >> > we're doing that, maybe we can change the type to
> >> > NULLABLE_STRING.> >>
> >> I was just talking to a colleague yesterday and we came to the
> >> conclusion that we should keep the boolean flag only on the client> >>
> >> side (as you may have suggested earlier?) and not make part of the> >>
> >> protocol as it might lead to a very complicated API on the long
> >> term.> >> Also we would keep the server side API simpler. Instead of the
> >> protocol change we could just simply have the boolean flag in
> >> AlterConfigOptions and the AdminClient should do the get-merge-set> >>
> >> logic which corresponds to the behavior of the current
> >> ConfigCommand.> >> That way we won't need to change the protocol for now
> >> but
> >> still have> >> both functionality. What do you think?
> >
> > Hi Viktor,
> >
> > Doing get-merge-set is buggy, though. If someone else does get-merge-
> > set at the same time as you, you might overwrite that person's
> > changes, or vice versa. So I really don't think we should try to do
> > this. Also, having both an incremental and a full API is useful,
> > and it's just a single boolean at the protocol and API level.> >
> >>
> >> > Hmm. Not sure I follow. KIP-133 doesn't use the empty string or
> >> > "<default>" to indicate defaults, does it?> >>
> >> No it doesn't. It was just my early idea to indicate "delete"
> >> on the> >> protocol level. (We are using <default> for denoting the default
> >> client id or user in zookeeper.) Rajini was referring that we
> >> shouldn't expose this to the protocol level but instead denote
> >> delete> >> with an empty string.
> >>
> >> > This comes from DescribeConfigsResponse.
> >> > Unless I'm missing something, I think your suggestion to not
> >> > expose "<default>" is already implemented?> >>
> >> In some way, yes. Although this one is used in describe and not in> >>
> >> alter. For alter I don't think we'd need my early "<default>" idea.> >
> > OK. Thanks for the explanation. Using an empty string to indicate
> > delete, as Rajini suggested, seems pretty reasonable to me. null
> > would work as well.> >
> >>
> >> >> And we use STRING rather than NULLABLE_STRING in describe
> >> >> configs etc. So we> >> >> should probably do the same for quotas."
> >> >
> >> > I think nearly all responses treat ERROR_MESSAGE as a nullable
> >> > string. CommonFields#ERROR_MESSAGE, which is used by most of
> >> > them, is a nullable string. It's DescribeConfigsResponse that is
> >> > the black sheep here.> >> >
> >> > > public static final Field.NullableStr ERROR_MESSAGE = new
> >> > > Field.NullableStr("error_message", "Response error
> >> > > message");> >>
> >> Looking at DescribeConfigsResponse (and AlterConfigsResponse)
> >> they use> >> nullable_string in the code. KIP-133 states otherwise though.
> >> So in> >> this case it's not a problem luckily.
> >
> > Thanks for finding this inconsistency. I'll change the KIP to
> > reflect what was actually implemented (nullable string for error).> >
> > cheers,
> > Colin
> >
> >>
> >> > What about writing a small script that just handles setting up
> >> > SCRAM credentials? It would probably be easier to maintain than
> >> > the old config command. Otherwise we have to explain when each
> >> > tool should be used, which will be confusing to users.> >>
> >> I'd like that, yes :).
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Viktor
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:> >> > On Fri, May 4, 2018, at 05:49, Viktor Somogyi wrote:
> >> >> Hi Colin,
> >> >>
> >> >> > Rather than breaking compatibility, we should simply add a new
> >> >> > "incremental" boolean to AlterConfigsOptions. Callers can set
> >> >> > this boolean to true when they want the update to be
> >> >> > incremental. It should default to false so that old code
> >> >> > continues to work.> >> >>
> >> >> Agreed, let's do it this way.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hmm. I don't think AlterOperation is necessary. If the user
> >> >> > wants to delete a configuration key named "foo", they can
> >> >> > create a ConfigEntry with name = "foo", value = null.> >> >>
> >> >> AlterConfig's config type currently is string, so the only
> >> >> possibility> >> >> is to use an empty string as changing the type to
> >> >> nullable_string> >> >> could be breaking if the client code doesn't
> >> >> expect -1 as the
> >> >> string> >> >> size. In the discussion thread earlier we had a
> >> >> conversation
> >> >> about> >> >> this with Rajini, let me paste it here (so it gives some
> >> >> context). At> >> >> that point I had the text "<default>" for this
> >> >> functionality:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Viktor,
> >> >
> >> > We are going to need to create a new version of
> >> > AlterConfigsRequest to add the "incremental" boolean. So while
> >> > we're doing that, maybe we can change the type to
> >> > NULLABLE_STRING.> >> >
> >> >> "4. We use "<default>" internally to store default quotas and
> >> >> other> >> >> defaults. But I don't think we should externalise that
> >> >> string.
> >> >> We use empty> >> >> string elsewhere for indicating default, we can do
> >> >> the same
> >> >> here.> >> >
> >> > Hmm. Not sure I follow. KIP-133 doesn't use the empty string or
> >> > "<default>" to indicate defaults, does it?> >> >
> >> > There is a ConfigEntry class:
> >> >
> >> > > @InterfaceStability.Evolving
> >> > > public class ConfigEntry {
> >> > >
> >> > > private final String name;
> >> > > private final String value;
> >> > > private final ConfigSource source;
> >> > > private final boolean isSensitive;
> >> > > private final boolean isReadOnly;
> >> > > private final List<ConfigSynonym> synonyms;
> >> >
> >> > and the ConfigSource enum indicates where the config came from:
> >> >
> >> > > /**
> >> > > * Source of configuration entries.
> >> > > */
> >> > > public enum ConfigSource {
> >> > > DYNAMIC_TOPIC_CONFIG, // dynamic topic
> >> > > config that is configured for a specific topic> >> > >
> >> > DYNAMIC_BROKER_CONFIG, // dynamic broker
> >> > > config that is configured for a specific broker> >> > >
> >> > DYNAMIC_DEFAULT_BROKER_CONFIG, // dynamic broker
> >> > > config that is configured as default for all brokers
> >> > > in the cluster> >> > > STATIC_BROKER_CONFIG,
> >> > // static broker
> >> > > config provided as broker properties at start up (e.g.
> >> > > server.properties file)> >> > > DEFAULT_CONFIG,
> >> > // built-in default
> >> > > configuration for configs that have a default value> >> > >
> >> > UNKNOWN // source unknown e.g.
> >> > > in the ConfigEntry used for alter requests where
> >> > > source is not set> >> > > }
> >> >
> >> > This comes from DescribeConfigsResponse.
> >> > Unless I'm missing something, I think your suggestion to not
> >> > expose "<default>" is already implemented?> >> >
> >> >> And we use STRING rather than NULLABLE_STRING in describe
> >> >> configs etc. So we> >> >> should probably do the same for quotas."
> >> >
> >> > I think nearly all responses treat ERROR_MESSAGE as a nullable
> >> > string. CommonFields#ERROR_MESSAGE, which is used by most of
> >> > them, is a nullable string. It's DescribeConfigsResponse that is
> >> > the black sheep here.> >> >
> >> > > public static final Field.NullableStr ERROR_MESSAGE = new
> >> > > Field.NullableStr("error_message", "Response error
> >> > > message");> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > Yeah, this might be an excessive maintenance burden. Maybe we
> >> >> > should get rid of the old zookeeper-based code, and just move
> >> >> > towards having only a KIP-248-based tool. It's a breaking
> >> >> > change, but it's clear to users that it's occurring, and what
> >> >> > the fix is (specifying --bootstrap-server instead of --
> >> >> > zookeeper).> >> >>
> >> >> Earlier Rajini raised a concern that direct zookeeper
> >> >> interaction is> >> >> required to add the SCRAM credentials which will
> >> >> be used for
> >> >> validation if inter-broker communication uses this auth method.
> >> >> This> >> >> is currently done by the ConfigCommand. Therefore we can't
> >> >> completely> >> >> get rid of it yet either.
> >> >>
> >> >> In my opinion though on a longer term (and this is now a bit
> >> >> off-topic) Kafka shouldn't use Zookeeper as a credentials store,
> >> >> just> >> >> provide an interface, so 3rd party authentication stores
> >> >> could
> >> >> be> >> >> implemented. Then similarly to the authorizer we could have
> >> >> Zookeeper> >> >> as a default though and a client that manages SCRAM
> >> >> credentials
> >> >> in ZK.> >> >> From this perspective I'd leave the the command there but
> >> >> put a> >> >> warning that the tool is deprecated and should only be
> >> >> used for> >> >> setting up SCRAM credentials.
> >> >> What do you think?
> >> >
> >> > What about writing a small script that just handles setting up
> >> > SCRAM credentials? It would probably be easier to maintain than
> >> > the old config command. Otherwise we have to explain when each
> >> > tool should be used, which will be confusing to users.> >> >
> >> > best,
> >> > Colin
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> Viktor
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Colin McCabe
> >> >> <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:> >> >> > On Thu, May 3, 2018, at 05:11,
> >> >> Viktor Somogyi wrote:
> >> >> >> @Magnus, yes that is correct. Thanks for your feedback.
> >> >> >> Updated it with> >> >> >> this (which might be subject to change
> >> >> >> based on the
> >> >> >> conversation with> >> >> >> Colin): "The changes done will be
> >> >> >> incremental in version 1,
> >> >> >> opposed to the> >> >> >> atomic behavior in version 0. For instance
> >> >> >> in version 0
> >> >> >> sending an update> >> >> >> for producer_byte_rate for userA would
> >> >> >> result in removing all
> >> >> >> previous data> >> >> >> and setting userA's config with
> >> >> >> producer_byte_rate. Now in
> >> >> >> version 1> >> >> >> opposed to version 0 it will add an extra config
> >> >> >> and keeps
> >> >> >> other existing> >> >> >> configs."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi Viktor,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > AdminClient#alterConfigs is a public API which users have
> >> >> > already written code against. If we silently change what it
> >> >> > does to be incremental addition rather than complete
> >> >> > replacement of the existing configuration, we will break all
> >> >> > of that existing code. If we do that, there is not even any
> >> >> > way that users can write code to support both broker versions.
> >> >> > AdminClient does not expose any API that users can use to
> >> >> > check broker version. I think that would be really bad for
> >> >> > users.> >> >> >
> >> >> > Rather than breaking compatibility, we should simply add a new
> >> >> > "incremental" boolean to AlterConfigsOptions. Callers can set
> >> >> > this boolean to true when they want the update to be
> >> >> > incremental. It should default to false so that old code
> >> >> > continues to work.> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> @Colin,
> >> >> >> yes, I have/had a hard time finding a place for this
> >> >> >> operation. I think ADD> >> >> >> and DELETE should be on config
> >> >> >> level to allow complex use
> >> >> >> cases (if someone> >> >> >> builds their own tool based on the
> >> >> >> AdminClient), so users can
> >> >> >> add and> >> >> >> delete multiple configs in one request.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hmm. I don't think AlterOperation is necessary. If the user
> >> >> > wants to delete a configuration key named "foo", they can
> >> >> > create a ConfigEntry with name = "foo", value = null.> >> >> >
> >> >> >> But also at the same time, SET is as you're suggesting really
> >> >> >> seems like a> >> >> >> flag that tells the AdminClient/AdminManager
> >> >> >> how they should
> >> >> >> behave.> >> >> >> However since the AdminClient matches protocol
> >> >> >> version with
> >> >> >> the broker via> >> >> >> the API_VERSIONS request, I think it would
> >> >> >> be enough to
> >> >> >> modify the> >> >> >> AdminManager that it should behave differently
> >> >> >> in case of an
> >> >> >> increased> >> >> >> protocol versions, if there is this extra flag
> >> >> >> set through
> >> >> >> AlterConfigOptions (AdminClient sets the flag on the
> >> >> >> protocol, which will> >> >> >> be reflected after parsing in
> >> >> >> AdminManager). Also if we
> >> >> >> target this change> >> >> >> to 2.0 (June?), then we might not need
> >> >> >> the extra flag but
> >> >> >> make the behavior> >> >> >> break. What do you think?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Right. I think a flag in AlterConfigsRequest makes sense.
> >> >> > AdminClient can set it based on a boolean field in
> >> >> > AlterConfigsOptions.> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Keeping the --zookeeper option working is not infeasible of
> >> >> >> course - and as> >> >> >> per the community's feedback it may be the
> >> >> >> better option.
> >> >> >> Although one of> >> >> >> the goals is to put this new ConfigCommand
> >> >> >> to the tools
> >> >> >> module, which> >> >> >> doesn't have the dependency on the server
> >> >> >> code, it would be a
> >> >> >> bit harder.> >> >> >> Most likely I'd need to call into the Scala
> >> >> >> code with
> >> >> >> reflection, which> >> >> >> could be quite complicated.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yeah, this might be an excessive maintenance burden. Maybe we
> >> >> > should get rid of the old zookeeper-based code, and just move
> >> >> > towards having only a KIP-248-based tool. It's a breaking
> >> >> > change, but it's clear to users that it's occurring, and what
> >> >> > the fix is (specifying --bootstrap-server instead of --
> >> >> > zookeeper).> >> >> >
> >> >> > best,
> >> >> > Colin
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Also rewrote the request semantics, hopefully it's more clear
> >> >> >> now.> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Let me know what do you think about this and thank you for
> >> >> >> your feedback.> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >> >> Viktor
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Colin McCabe
> >> >> >> <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Hi Viktor,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If I'm reading the KIP right, it looks like the new
> >> >> >> > proposed verison of> >> >> >> > AlterConfigs sets an OperationType
> >> >> >> > on a per-config basis:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > AlterConfigs Request (Version: 1) => [resources]
> >> >> >> > > validate_only> >> >> >> > > validate_only => BOOLEAN
> >> >> >> > > resources => resource_type resource_name [configs]
> >> >> >> > > resource_type => INT8
> >> >> >> > > resource_name => STRING
> >> >> >> > > configs => config_name config_value config_operation> >> >>
> >> >> >> > >> > > config_name => STRING
> >> >> >> > > config_value => STRING
> >> >> >> > > config_operation => INT8 [NEW ADDITION]
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Request Semantics:
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > By default in the broker we parse an
> >> >> >> > > AlterConfigRequest version 0> >> >> >> > > with Unknown
> >> >> >> > operation and handle it with the currently
> >> >> >> > > existing> >> >> >> > behavior.
> >> >> >> > > Version 1 requests however must have the operation set
> >> >> >> > > to other than> >> >> >> > > Unknown, otherwise an
> >> >> >> > InvalidRequestException will be
> >> >> >> > > thrown.> >> >> >> > > Set operation also does Add if
> >> >> >> > needed to be
> >> >> >> > > backward> >> >> >> > compatible
> >> >> >> > > with the existing ConfigCommand semantics.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > However, this seems like a configuration that should be
> >> >> >> > global to the> >> >> >> > whole AlterConfigs request, right? It
> >> >> >> > doesn't make sense
> >> >> >> > to have one> >> >> >> > configuration key use AlterOperation.Set
> >> >> >> > and the other use> >> >> >> > AlterOperation.Add -- the Set one
> >> >> >> > specifies that we should
> >> >> >> > overwrite the> >> >> >> > whole node in ZK.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Another consideration here is that we should do this in a
> >> >> >> > compatible> >> >> >> > fashion in AdminClient. Existing code that
> >> >> >> > relies on the
> >> >> >> > "set everything"> >> >> >> > behavior should not break. The best
> >> >> >> > way to do this is to
> >> >> >> > add a boolean to> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ./clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/admin/Alt-
> >> >> >> > erConfigsOptions.java> >> >> >> > , specifying whether we want to
> >> >> >> > clear everything that
> >> >> >> > hasn't been> >> >> >> > specified, or not. This should default to
> >> >> >> > true so that
> >> >> >> > existing code can> >> >> >> > continue to work.... Unless we
> >> >> >> > believe that the existing
> >> >> >> > AlterConfigs> >> >> >> > behavior is so broken that it should be
> >> >> >> > changed, even in a> >> >> >> > compatibility-breaking way.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Similarly, for other tools, we managed to support both the
> >> >> >> > zookeeper-based> >> >> >> > way and the new way in the same tool
> >> >> >> > for a while. This
> >> >> >> > seems like> >> >> >> > something users would really want-- is it
> >> >> >> > truly infeasible
> >> >> >> > to do here? The> >> >> >> > Java code could call into the Scala
> >> >> >> > code as necessary when
> >> >> >> > the zk flag was> >> >> >> > specified, right?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > best,
> >> >> >> > Colin
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, at 01:47, Magnus Edenhill wrote:
> >> >> >> > > Hi Viktor,
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > after speaking to Rajini it seems like this KIP will
> >> >> >> > > allow clients to> >> >> >> > > perform incremental configuration
> >> >> >> > > updates with
> >> >> >> > > AlterConfigs, only> >> >> >> > providing
> >> >> >> > > the settings
> >> >> >> > > that it wants to change, as opposed to the current atomic
> >> >> >> > > behaviour where> >> >> >> > > all settings
> >> >> >> > > need to be provided to avoid having them revert to their
> >> >> >> > > default values.> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > If this is indeed the case, could you update the KIP to
> >> >> >> > > make this more> >> >> >> > > clear?
> >> >> >> > > I.e., that using Version 1 of AlterConfigs has the
> >> >> >> > > incremental behaviour,> >> >> >> > > while
> >> >> >> > > version 0 is atomic.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Thanks,
> >> >> >> > > Magnus
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > 2018-04-16 13:27 GMT+02:00 Viktor Somogyi
> >> >> >> > > <viktorsomo...@gmail.com>:> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > > Hi Rajini,
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > The current ConfigCommand would still be possible to
> >> >> >> > > > use, therefore> >> >> >> > those
> >> >> >> > > > who wish to set up SCRAM or initial quotas would be
> >> >> >> > > > able to continue> >> >> >> > doing
> >> >> >> > > > it through kafka-run-class.sh.
> >> >> >> > > > In an ideal world I'd keep it in the current
> >> >> >> > > > ConfigCommand command so> >> >> >> > we
> >> >> >> > > > wouldn't mix the zookeeper and admin client configs.
> >> >> >> > > > Perhaps I could> >> >> >> > create
> >> >> >> > > > a kafka-configs-zookeeper.sh shell script for
> >> >> >> > > > shortening the> >> >> >> > > > kafka-run-class command.
> >> >> >> > > > What do you and others think?
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > Thanks,
> >> >> >> > > > Viktor
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
> >> >> >> > rajinisiva...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> > > > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > Hi Viktor,
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > The KIP proposes to remove the ability to configure
> >> >> >> > > > > using ZooKeeper.> >> >> >> > This
> >> >> >> > > > > means we will no longer have the ability to start up
> >> >> >> > > > > a cluster with> >> >> >> > SCRAM
> >> >> >> > > > > credentials since we first need to create SCRAM
> >> >> >> > > > > credentials before> >> >> >> > > > brokers
> >> >> >> > > > > can start if the broker uses SCRAM for inter-broker
> >> >> >> > > > > communication> >> >> >> > and we
> >> >> >> > > > > need SCRAM credentials for the AdminClient before we
> >> >> >> > > > > can create new> >> >> >> > ones.
> >> >> >> > > > > For quotas as well, we will no longer be able to
> >> >> >> > > > > configure quotas> >> >> >> > until
> >> >> >> > > > at
> >> >> >> > > > > least one broker has been started. Perhaps, we ought
> >> >> >> > > > > to retain the> >> >> >> > > > ability
> >> >> >> > > > > to configure using ZooKeeper for these initialization
> >> >> >> > > > > scenarios and> >> >> >> > > > support
> >> >> >> > > > > only AdminClient for dynamic updates?
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > What do others think?
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > Regards,
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > Rajini
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Ted Yu
> >> >> >> > > > > <yuzhih...@gmail.com>> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > +1
> >> >> >> > > > > > -------- Original message --------From: zhenya Sun
> >> >> >> > > > > > <> >> >> >> > toke...@126.com>
> >> >> >> > > > > > Date: 4/15/18 12:42 AM (GMT-08:00) To: dev
> >> >> >> > > > > > <dev@kafka.apache.org> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > > Cc:
> >> >> >> > > > > > dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> Subject: Re: [VOTE] #2
> >> >> >> > > > > > KIP-248: Create> >> >> >> > New
> >> >> >> > > > > > ConfigCommand That Uses The New AdminClient
> >> >> >> > > > > > non-binding +1
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > from my iphone！
> >> >> >> > > > > > On 04/15/2018 15:41, Attila Sasvári wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > > > Thanks for updating the KIP.
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > +1 (non-binding)
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > Viktor Somogyi <viktorsomo...@gmail.com> ezt írta
> >> >> >> > > > > > (időpont: 2018.> >> >> >> > ápr.
> >> >> >> > > > > 9.,
> >> >> >> > > > > > H 16:49):
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > Hi Magnus,
> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > Thanks for the heads up, added the endianness to
> >> >> >> > > > > > > the KIP. Here> >> >> >> > is the
> >> >> >> > > > > > > current text:
> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > "Double
> >> >> >> > > > > > > A new type needs to be added to transfer quota
> >> >> >> > > > > > > values. Since the> >> >> >> > > > > protocol
> >> >> >> > > > > > > classes in Kafka already uses ByteBuffers it is
> >> >> >> > > > > > > logical to use> >> >> >> > their
> >> >> >> > > > > > > functionality for serializing doubles. The
> >> >> >> > > > > > > serialization is> >> >> >> > > > basically a
> >> >> >> > > > > > > representation of the specified floating-point
> >> >> >> > > > > > > value according> >> >> >> > to the
> >> >> >> > > > > > IEEE
> >> >> >> > > > > > > 754 floating-point "double format" bit layout.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > The ByteBuffer> >> >> >> > > > > serializer
> >> >> >> > > > > > > writes eight bytes containing the given double
> >> >> >> > > > > > > value, in Big> >> >> >> > Endian
> >> >> >> > > > > byte
> >> >> >> > > > > > > order, into this buffer at the current position,
> >> >> >> > > > > > > and then> >> >> >> > increments
> >> >> >> > > > > the
> >> >> >> > > > > > > position by eight.
> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > The implementation will be defined in
> >> >> >> > > > > > > org.apache.kafka.common.protocol.types with the
> >> >> >> > > > > > > other protocol> >> >> >> > types
> >> >> >> > > > > > and it
> >> >> >> > > > > > > will have no default value much like the other
> >> >> >> > > > > > > types available> >> >> >> > in the
> >> >> >> > > > > > > protocol."
> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > Also, I haven't changed the protocol docs yet but
> >> >> >> > > > > > > will do so in> >> >> >> > my PR
> >> >> >> > > > > for
> >> >> >> > > > > > > this feature.
> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > Let me know if you'd still add something.
> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > Regards,
> >> >> >> > > > > > > Viktor
> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Magnus Edenhill <> >> >>
> >> >> >> > > > > > > >> > mag...@edenhill.se>
> >> >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Hi Viktor,
> >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > since serialization of floats isn't as straight
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > forward as> >> >> >> > > > integers,
> >> >> >> > > > > > > please
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > specify the exact serialization format of
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > DOUBLE in the> >> >> >> > protocol
> >> >> >> > > > docs
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > (e.g., IEEE 754),
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > including endianness (big-endian please).
> >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > This will help the non-java client ecosystem.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > Magnus
> >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > 2018-04-09 15:16 GMT+02:00 Viktor Somogyi <
> >> >> >> > viktorsomo...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> > > > >:
> >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Hi Attila,
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > 1. It uses ByteBuffers, which in turn will
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > use> >> >> >> > > > > > Double.doubleToLongBits
> >> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > convert the double value to a long and that
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > long will be> >> >> >> > written
> >> >> >> > > > in
> >> >> >> > > > > > the
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > buffer. I'v updated the KIP with this.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > 2. Good idea, modified it.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > 3. During the discussion I remember we didn't
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > really decide> >> >> >> > which
> >> >> >> > > > > one
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > would
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > be the better one but I agree that a wrapper
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > class that makes> >> >> >> > > > sure
> >> >> >> > > > > > the
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > list
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > that is used as a key is immutable is a good
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > idea and would> >> >> >> > ease
> >> >> >> > > > > the
> >> >> >> > > > > > > life
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > of people using the interface. Also more
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > importantly would> >> >> >> > make
> >> >> >> > > > > sure
> >> >> >> > > > > > > that
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > we always use the same hashCode. I have
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > created wrapper> >> >> >> > classes
> >> >> >> > > > for
> >> >> >> > > > > > the
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > map
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > value as well but that was reverted to keep
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > things> >> >> >> > consistent.
> >> >> >> > > > > > Although
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > for
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > the key I think we wouldn't break
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > consistency. I updated the> >> >> >> > KIP.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Viktor
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Attila
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Sasvári <> >> >> >> > > > > asasv...@apache.org>
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for working on it Viktor.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > It looks good to me, but I have some
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > questions:> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > - I see a
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > new type DOUBLE is used for
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > quota_value , and it> >> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> > > > not
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > listed
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > among the primitive types on the Kafka
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > protocol guide. Can> >> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> > > > > add
> >> >> >> > > > > > > some
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > more details?
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > - I am not sure that using an environment
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > (i.e.> >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > USE_OLD_COMMAND)variable
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > the best way to control behaviour of kafka-
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > config.sh . In> >> >> >> > other
> >> >> >> > > > > > > scripts
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > (e.g. console-consumer) an argument is
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > passed (e.g.> >> >> >> > > > > > --new-consumer).
> >> >> >> > > > > > > If
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > still want to use it, then I would suggest
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > something like> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > USE_OLD_KAFKA_CONFIG_COMMAND. What do you
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > think?> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > - I have seen
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > maps like
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Map<List<ConfigResource>,> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Collection<QuotaType>>.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > If List<ConfigResource> is the key type,
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > you should make> >> >> >> > sure
> >> >> >> > > > > that
> >> >> >> > > > > > > this
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > List is immutable. Have you considered to
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > introduce a new> >> >> >> > > > wrapper
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > class?
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > - Attila
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:46 PM, zhenya Sun
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > <> >> >> >> > toke...@126.com>
> >> >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > +1 （non-binding）
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > | |
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > zhenya Sun
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 邮箱：toke...@126.com
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > |
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 签名由 网易邮箱大师 定制
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On 03/29/2018 19:40, Sandor Murakozi
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > +1
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (non-binding)
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, Viktor
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Viktor
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Somogyi <> >> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > viktorsomo...@gmail.com
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone,
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've started a vote on KIP-248
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
> >> >> >> > luence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > 248+-+Create+New+
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ConfigCommand+That+Uses+The+New+AdminC-
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > lient#KIP-248-> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > CreateNewConfigCommandThatUsesTheNewAd-
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > minClient-> >> >> >> > > > > > DescribeQuotas>
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > a few weeks ago but at the time I got a
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > couple more> >> >> >> > > > comments
> >> >> >> > > > > > and
> >> >> >> > > > > > > it
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > was
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > very close to 1.1 feature freeze,
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > people were occupied> >> >> >> > with
> >> >> >> > > > > > that,
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > so
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > I
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wanted to restart the vote on this.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > *Summary of the KIP*
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > For those who don't have context I
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > thought I'd> >> >> >> > summarize it
> >> >> >> > > > > in
> >> >> >> > > > > > a
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > few
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > sentence.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > *Problem & Motivation: *The basic
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > problem that the KIP> >> >> >> > > > tries
> >> >> >> > > > > to
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > solve
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > that kafka-configs.sh (which in turn
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > uses the> >> >> >> > ConfigCommand
> >> >> >> > > > > > > class)
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > uses
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > direct zookeeper connection. This is
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not desirable as> >> >> >> > > > getting
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > around
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > broker opens up security issues and
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > prevents the tool> >> >> >> > from
> >> >> >> > > > > > being
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > used
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > deployments where only the brokers are
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > exposed to> >> >> >> > clients.
> >> >> >> > > > > > Also a
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > somewhat
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > smaller motivation is to rewrite the
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > tool in java as> >> >> >> > part
> >> >> >> > > > of
> >> >> >> > > > > > the
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > tools
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > component so we can get rid of
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > requiring the core> >> >> >> > module on
> >> >> >> > > > > the
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > classpath
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for the kafka-configs tool.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > *Solution:*
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - I've designed new 2 protocols:
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > DescribeQuotas and> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > AlterQuotas.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - Also redesigned the output format of
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the command line> >> >> >> > > > tool
> >> >> >> > > > > so
> >> >> >> > > > > > > it
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > provides
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > a nicer result.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - kafka-configs.[sh/bat] will use a new
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > java based> >> >> >> > > > > > ConfigCommand
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > that
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > placed in tools.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd be happy to receive any votes or
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > feedback on this.> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Viktor
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >
