Ok, ignore my previous mail (except the last sentence), gmail didn't
update me about your last email :/.
> I think we should probably just create a flag for alterConfigs which marks it
> as incremental, like we discussed earlier, and do this as a compatible change
> that is needed for the shell command.
Alright, I missed that about the sensitive configs too, so in this
case I can agree with this. I'll update the KIP this afternoon and
update this thread.
Thanks again for your contribution.
Viktor
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 2:34 AM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
> Actually, I just realized that this won't work. The AlterConfigs API is kind
> of broken right now. DescribeConfigs won't return the "sensitive"
> configurations like passwords. So doing describe + edit + alter will wipe
> out all sensitive configs. :(
>
> I think we should probably just create a flag for alterConfigs which marks it
> as incremental, like we discussed earlier, and do this as a compatible change
> that is needed for the shell command.
>
> best,
> Colin
>
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2018, at 09:32, Colin McCabe wrote:
>> Hi Viktor,
>>
>> Since the KIP freeze is coming up really soon, maybe we should just drop
>> the section about changes to AlterConfigs from KIP-248. We don't really
>> need it here, since ConfigCommand can use AlterConfigs as-is.
>>
>> We can pick up the discussion about improving AlterConfigs in a future KIP.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>> On Wed, May 16, 2018, at 22:06, Colin McCabe wrote:
>> > 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
>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > >> >> >> > > > > >
>> > > >> >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> >> > > >
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> >
