Hi Jason, There’s a “Motivation” chapter in the KIP: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-280%3A+Enhanced+log+compaction#KIP-280:Enhancedlogcompaction-Motivation
Is it still unclear after reading that? Kind Regards, Luís Cabral From: Jason Gustafson Sent: 03 July 2018 23:45 To: dev Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-280: Enhanced log compaction Sorry to join the discussion late. Can you you add to the motivation the use cases for header-based compaction. This seems not very clear to me. Thanks, Jason On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Luis, > > I believe that compaction property is indeed overridable at per-topic > level, as in > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/0cacbcf30e0a90ab9fad7bc310e547 > 7cf959f1fd/clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/common/ > config/TopicConfig.java#L116 > > And also documented in https://kafka.apache.org/ > documentation/#topicconfigs > > Is that right? > > > > Guozhang > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 7:41 AM, Luís Cabral <luis_cab...@yahoo.com.invalid > > > wrote: > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > You are right that it is not straightforward to add a dependent property > > validation. > > Though it is possible to re-design it to allow for this, that effort > would > > be better placed under its own KIP, if it really becomes useful for other > > properties as well. > > Given this, the fallback-to-offset behaviour currently documented will be > > used. > > > > Also, while analyzing this, I noticed that the existing compaction > > properties only exist globally, and not per topic. > > I don't understand why this is, but it again feels like something out of > > scope for this KIP. > > Given this, the KIP was updated to only include the global configuration > > properties, removing the per-topic configs. > > > > I'll soon update the PR according to the documentation, but I trust the > > KIP doesn't need that to close, right? > > > > Cheers, > > Luis > > > > On Monday, July 2, 2018, 2:00:08 PM GMT+2, Luís Cabral > > <luis_cab...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote: > > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > At the moment the KIP has your vote, Matthias' and Ted's. > > Should I ask someone else to have a look? > > > > Cheers, > > Luis > > > > On Monday, July 2, 2018, 12:16:48 PM GMT+2, Mickael Maison < > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > +1 (non binding). Thanks for the KIP! > > > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Hi Luis, > > > > > > Regarding the minor suggest, I agree it would be better to make it as > > > mandatory, but it might be a bit tricky because it is a conditional > > > mandatory one depending on the other config's value. Would like to see > > your > > > updated PR. > > > > > > Regarding the KIP itself, both Matthias and myself can recast our votes > > to > > > the updated wiki, while we still need one more committer to vote > > according > > > to the bylaws. > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 5:38 AM, Luís Cabral > > <luis_cab...@yahoo.com.invalid> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> Thank you all for having a look! > > >> > > >> The KIP is now updated with the result of these late discussions, > > though I > > >> did take some liberty with this part: > > >> > > >> > > >> - If the "compaction.strategy.header" configuration is not set (or > is > > >> blank), then the compaction strategy will fallback to "offset"; > > >> > > >> > > >> Alternatively, we can also set it to be a mandatory property when the > > >> strategy is "header" and fail the application to start via a config > > >> validation (I would honestly prefer this, but its up to your taste). > > >> > > >> Anyway, this is now a minute detail that can be adapted during the > final > > >> stage of this KIP, so are you all alright with me changing the status > to > > >> [ACCEPTED]? > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Luis > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thursday, June 28, 2018, 2:08:11 PM GMT+2, Ted Yu < > > >> yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Luís Cabral > > <luis_cab...@yahoo.com.invalid > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi Ted, > > >> > Can I also get your input on this? > > >> > > > >> > bq. +1 from my side for using `compaction.strategy` with values > > >> > "offset","timestamp" and "header" and `compaction.strategy.header` > > >> > -Matthias > > >> > > > >> > bq. +1 from me as well. > > >> > -Guozhang > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Cheers, > > >> > Luis > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang >
