FWIW, I’d find this feature useful.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:42 PM Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ryanne,
>
> If your connector is already using the AdminClient, then you as the
> developer have a choice of switching to the new Connect-based functionality
> or keeping the existing use of the AdminClient. If the connector uses both
> mechanisms (which I wouldn't recommend, simply because of the complexity of
> it for a user), then the topic will be created by the first mechanism to
> actually attempt and successfully create the topic(s) in the Kafka cluster
> that the Connect worker uses. As mentioned in the KIP, "This feature ...
> does not change the topic-specific settings on any existing topics." IOW,
> if the topic already exists, it can't be created again and therefore the
> `topic.creation.*` properties will not apply for that existing topic.
>
> > Do these settings apply to internal topics created by the framework on
> > bahalf of a connector, e.g. via KafkaConfigBackingStore?
>
> No, they don't, and I'm happy to add a clarification to the KIP if you feel
> it is necessary.
>
> > I'd have the same questions if e.g. transformations could be ignored or
> > overridden by connectors or if there were multiple places to specify what
> > serde to use.
>
> There are multiple places that converters can be defined: the worker config
> defines the key and value converters that will be used for all connectors,
> except when a connector defines its own key and value converters.
>
> > I don't see how controlling topic creation based on topic name is
> something
> > we should support across all connectors, as if it is some established
> > pattern or universally useful.
>
> Topics are identified by name, and when you create a topic with specific
> settings or change a topic's settings you identify the topic by name. The
> fact that this KIP uses regular expressions to match topic names doesn't
> seem surprising, since we use regexes elsewhere.
>
> Best regards
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 1:24 PM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Randall,
> >
> > Say I've got a connector that needs to control topic creation. What I
> need
> > is an AdminClient s.t. my connector can do what it knows it needs to do.
> > This KIP doesn't address the issues that have been brought up wrt
> > configuration, principals, ACL etc, since I'll still need to construct my
> > own AdminClient.
> >
> > Should such a connector ignore your proposed configuration settings?
> Should
> > it use it's own principal and it's own configuration properties? How does
> > my AdminClient's settings interact with your proposed settings and the
> > existing cluster settings?
> >
> > What happens when a user specifies topic creation settings in a connector
> > config, but the connector then applies it's own topic creation logic? Are
> > the configurations silently ignored? If not, how can a connector honor
> your
> > proposed settings?
> >
> > Do these settings apply to internal topics created by the framework on
> > bahalf of a connector, e.g. via KafkaConfigBackingStore?
> >
> > When do the cluster settings get applied? Only after 3 layers of
> > fall-through?
> >
> > I'd have the same questions if e.g. transformations could be ignored or
> > overridden by connectors or if there were multiple places to specify what
> > serde to use.
> >
> > I don't see how controlling topic creation based on topic name is
> something
> > we should support across all connectors, as if it is some established
> > pattern or universally useful.
> >
> > Ryanne
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018, 10:14 AM Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Ryanne. My apologies for not responding earlier, as I was on a long
> > > holiday.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback and questions about this KIP. You've raised
> > > several points in the discussion so far, so let me try to address most
> of
> > > them.
> > >
> > > IIUC, one of your major concerns is that this KIP introduces a new way
> to
> > > define configurations for topics. That is true, and the whole reason is
> > to
> > > simply the user experience for people using source connectors. You
> still
> > > have the freedom to manually pre-create topics before running a
> > connector,
> > > or to rely upon the broker automatically creating topics for the
> > connectors
> > > when those topics don't yet exist -- in both cases, don't include
> > anything
> > > about topic creation in your connector configurations. In fact, when
> you
> > do
> > > this, Connect uses the current behavior by assuming the topics exist or
> > > will be autocreated with the proper configurations.
> > >
> > > But for many environments, this existing approach is not enough. First,
> > if
> > > you're relying upon the broker to autocreate topics, then the brokers
> > > single set of default topic settings must match the requirements of
> your
> > > new topics. This can be difficult when your running multiple kinds of
> > > connectors with differing expectations. Consider using a CDC connector
> > that
> > > expects compaction, a high-volume web service connector that should not
> > use
> > > compaction but expects deletion after 7 days, and another connector
> with
> > > lower volume that uses 30 day retention. Or, consider connectors that
> are
> > > producing to topics that have very different message characteristics:
> > > different sizes, different throughputs, different partitions, etc. The
> > only
> > > way to work around this is to pre-create the topics, but this adds more
> > > complexity and room for errors, especially when a single instance of
> some
> > > source connectors can write to dozens (or even hundreds) of topics.
> > >
> > > Second, many operators prefer (or are required) to disable topic
> > > autocreation, since simple mistakes with command line tools can result
> in
> > > new topics. In this cases, users have no choice but to manually
> precreate
> > > the topics that complicates the process of running a connector and, as
> > > mentioned above, increases the risk that something goes wrong.
> > >
> > > Third, the reason why this KIP introduces a way for connector
> > > implementations to override some topic settings is because some source
> > > connectors have very specific requirements. When I wrote the first
> > Debezium
> > > CDC connectors, many first-time users didn't precreate the topics as
> > > recommended in the documentation, and didn't change their brokers'
> > default
> > > topic settings. Only after a few days when they tried reconsuming the
> > full
> > > streams did they realize that Kafka had deleted messages older than the
> > > default retention period. Debezium expects / requires compacted topics,
> > so
> > > all kinds of things went wrong. Connect is often one of the first ways
> in
> > > which people get introduced to Kafka, and they simply don't yet have an
> > > understanding of many of the details that you or I don't have to think
> > > twice about.
> > >
> > > You suggested that maybe Connect should just expose the Admin API.
> That's
> > > possible, but IMO it's very heavyweight and complex. The whole point of
> > > Connect's design is to abstract the connector developer away from most
> of
> > > the details of Kafka -- it doesn't even expose the producer and
> consumer
> > > APIs, which are much simpler. IMO it would be a mistake to require
> source
> > > connector developers to deal with the Admin API -- I even have trouble
> > > writing code that uses it to properly create topics, especially around
> > > properly handling all of the potential error conditions.
> > >
> > > You also mention that topic settings in a connector configuration might
> > not
> > > reflect the actual topic's settings. This is true, especially if the
> > topic
> > > already existed with different settings before the connector was run.
> > > However, this is also very true of the broker's default topic settings,
> > > which very often don't reflect the actual settings for all of the
> topics
> > --
> > > the defaults may have been changed, or topics are created manually with
> > > very different settings. The only way to know the settings of a
> > particular
> > > topic are to get them for that topic.
> > >
> > > The use of naming rules in the topic creation settings is intentional,
> > and
> > > it allows connector users to define topic settings for topics based
> upon
> > > the names. In some cases this may require several rules to handle the
> > > different topics, but most of the time a single rule may be all that's
> > > required. I also don't agree that users will start naming topics to
> > > simplify their rules -- many source connectors that write to more than
> > one
> > > topic often don't allow the user to specify the full name of the topics
> > > anyway, and when they do they often only write to one topic.
> > >
> > > I still think that the proposed KIP provides a simple way for most
> source
> > > connector users to control (via configuration) the settings of the
> topics
> > > that will be created by Connect for that connector, which works with
> all
> > > existing source connectors out of the box and does not add additional
> > > complexities for source connector developers.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Randall
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Rather than go though the connect framework, connectors should just
> > > > create their own AdminClient instance and create their own topics?
> > > >
> > > > Rather, can the framework be improved to expose an AdminClient ready
> to
> > > > use? Then connectors can use this instance without needing separate
> > > > identities/principals and associated configuration (which I totally
> > > > understand would be a nightmare). I believe that covers all the
> > > use-cases?
> > > >
> > > > I just don't see how the "terrible config situation" is remedied by
> > > adding
> > > > even more configuration.
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'm not sure I can conceive of a use-case in which a single
> > > connector
> > > > would need multiple default topic settings *based on the topic name*.
> > Can
> > > > you give a real-world example? Is this something you've encountered,
> or
> > > are
> > > > you just trying for a flexible design?
> > > >
> > > > Ryanne
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:57 PM Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Ryanne,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the feedback!
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you explain a bit more what you mean by "if we allow connectors
> > to
> > > > make
> > > > > this
> > > > > decision, they should have full control of the process."?
> > > > >
> > > > > I assume you mean, something like:
> > > > > Rather than go though the connect framework, connectors should just
> > > > create
> > > > > their own AdminClient instance and create their own topics?
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with this approach is that connectors currently don't
> > have
> > > > > their own identity (in the authentication/authorization sense). All
> > > > > connectors share the framework identity, if the users need to start
> > > > > configuring security for both the framework and connect itself, it
> > gets
> > > > > messy rather quickly.
> > > > > We actually already do the thing I'm imagining you suggested in
> some
> > > > > connectors right now (create AdminClient and configure topics), and
> > we
> > > > hope
> > > > > to use the new framework capability to clean-up the configuration
> > mess
> > > > this
> > > > > has caused. I spent 4 days trying to figure out what a specific
> > > connector
> > > > > doesn't work, just to find out that you need to give it its own
> > > security
> > > > > config because it has an AdminClient so the configuration on the
> > > > framework
> > > > > isn't enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > From my experience with rather large number of customers, there are
> > > some
> > > > > companies where the topics are controlled by a central team that
> owns
> > > all
> > > > > the machinery to create and configure topics (sometimes via gitops,
> > > > > kubernetes custom resources, etc) and they would indeed be very
> > > surprised
> > > > > if a connector suddenly had opinions about topics. There are also
> > teams
> > > > > where the application developers feel like they know their data and
> > > > > use-case the best and they are in-charge of making all topic-level
> > > > > decisions, usually automated by the app itself. Admin client was
> > > created
> > > > > for those teams and I think they'll appreciate having this
> capability
> > > in
> > > > > connect too. Funny thing is, customers who work with one model
> > usually
> > > > > can't believe the other model even exists.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd love to propose a compromise and suggest that we'll allow this
> > > > > functionality in Connect but also give ops teams the option to
> > disable
> > > it
> > > > > and avoid surprises. But I'm afraid this wont work - too often the
> > > > defaults
> > > > > are just terrible for specific connectors (CDC connectors sometimes
> > > need
> > > > a
> > > > > single partition to maintain consistency) and if there is a chance
> > the
> > > > > connector preference won't be used, connectors will have to force
> it
> > > via
> > > > > admin client which brings us back to the terrible config situation
> we
> > > > > currently have with Admin client.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gwen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 7:23 PM, Ryanne Dolan <
> ryannedo...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Randall,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have some concerns with this proposal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Firstly, I don't believe it is the job of a connector to
> configure
> > > > > topics,
> > > > > > generally, nor for topic-specific settings to hang out in
> connector
> > > > > > configurations. Automatic creation of topics with default
> settings
> > is
> > > > an
> > > > > > established pattern elsewhere, and I don't think connectors need
> to
> > > > > diverge
> > > > > > from this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree there are cases where the default settings don't make
> sense
> > > and
> > > > > > it'd be nice to override them. But if we allow connectors to make
> > > this
> > > > > > decision, they should have full control of the process.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some concerns:
> > > > > > - I'd expect the cluster's default settings to apply to newly
> > created
> > > > > > topics, regardless of who created them. I wouldn't expect source
> > > > > connectors
> > > > > > to be a special case. In particular, I'd be surprised if Kafka
> > > Connect
> > > > > were
> > > > > > to ignore my cluster's default settings and apply its own
> defaults.
> > > > > > - It will be possible to add a specific topic to this
> > configuration,
> > > in
> > > > > > which case any reader would expect the topic to have the
> specified
> > > > > > settings. But this will not generally be true. Thus, the
> > > configuration
> > > > > will
> > > > > > end up lying and misleading, and there won't be any indication
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > configuration is lying.
> > > > > > - Connectors that want to control settings will end up naming
> > topics
> > > > > > accordingly. For example, a connector that wants to control the
> > > number
> > > > of
> > > > > > partitions would need a bunch of creation rules for 1 partition,
> 2
> > > > > > partitions and so on. This is a bad pattern to establish. A
> better
> > > > > pattern
> > > > > > is to let the connector control the number of partitions directly
> > > when
> > > > > that
> > > > > > feature is required.
> > > > > > - The proposal introduces 2 new interfaces to control topic
> > creation
> > > > > > (configuration rules and TopicSettings), where there is already a
> > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > good one (AdminClient).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 5:08 PM Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay, I think I cleaned up the formatting issues in the KIP
> wiki
> > > > page.
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > > while implementing I realized that it'd be helpful to be able
> to
> > > > limit
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > the connector configuration and the rules which topics are
> > > created. I
> > > > > > added
> > > > > > > the `topic.creation.${ruleName}.policy` behavior, with possible
> > > > values
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > "create" (the default), "autocreate" (to specify that Connect
> > > should
> > > > > let
> > > > > > > the broker autocreate any matching topics), and "fail" (to
> > specify
> > > > that
> > > > > > > Connect should not allow the creation of topics whose names
> match
> > > the
> > > > > > > rule's regular expression).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me know what you think. I'd like to start voting soon, but
> > > > because
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > made the above change I'll wait a few days.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Randall
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 9:41 PM Randall Hauch <
> rha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Magesh.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All, I've made a few very minor changes to some JavaDocs and
> > the
> > > > > > > > signatures of the name-value pair methods in TopicSettings
> > > > > interface. I
> > > > > > > > also described as a fifth rejected alternative why this KIP
> > does
> > > > not
> > > > > > > modify
> > > > > > > > any topic settings for existing topics. All of these are
> pretty
> > > > > minor,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > I'm happy to hear about issues or suggestions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since the above changes were very minor, I'll kick off a vote
> > to
> > > > > accept
> > > > > > > > this KIP unless I hear something in the next day or two. Note
> > > that
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > has been around in virtually the exact form for over a year.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Randall
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 9:17 PM Magesh Nandakumar <
> > > > > > mage...@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Randall,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I originally thought that this proposal was a config only
> > topic
> > > > > > settings
> > > > > > > >> and hence made the comment about configs being pass
> through. I
> > > > just
> > > > > > > >> realized that the connectors can also override and provide
> the
> > > > > > > >> TopicSettings. With that in mind, I think the proposal looks
> > > > great.
> > > > > > > >> Looking forward to the feature.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> Magesh
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 8:53 PM Magesh Nandakumar <
> > > > > > mage...@confluent.io
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > I was wondering if it would be much simpler to just do a
> > > > > > pass-through
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > >> > that we can support any topic setting added in Kafka
> without
> > > any
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > >> > changes in connect. Since these are for topics that will
> > have
> > > > the
> > > > > > > actual
> > > > > > > >> > data stream, users might possibly need more flexibility in
> > > terms
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > topics get created.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Thanks
> > > > > > > >> > Magesh
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 4:56 PM Randall Hauch <
> > > rha...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> Do you think we should support name-value pairs, too?
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:41 PM Magesh Nandakumar <
> > > > > > > >> mage...@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > Randall,
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > Thanks a lot for the KIP. I think this would be a great
> > > > > addition
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> >> many
> > > > > > > >> >> > source connectors.
> > > > > > > >> >> > One clarification I had was regarding the topic
> settings
> > > that
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> >> > configured. Is it limited to the setting exposed in the
> > > > > > > TopicSettings
> > > > > > > >> >> > interface?
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > Thanks
> > > > > > > >> >> > Magesh
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 7:59 PM Randall Hauch <
> > > > > rha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > Okay, after much delay let's try this again for AK
> 2.1.
> > > Has
> > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > >> >> found
> > > > > > > >> >> > > any concerns? Stephane suggested that we allow
> updating
> > > > topic
> > > > > > > >> >> > > configurations (everything but partition count). I'm
> > > > > > unconvinced
> > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > >> >> > it's
> > > > > > > >> >> > > worth the additional complexity in the implementation
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > documentation
> > > > > > > >> >> > > to explain the behavior. Changing several of the
> > > > > topic-specific
> > > > > > > >> >> > > configurations have significant impact on broker
> > > behavior /
> > > > > > > >> >> > functionality,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > so IMO we need to proceed more cautiously.
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > Stephane, do you have a particular use case in mind
> for
> > > > > > updating
> > > > > > > >> topic
> > > > > > > >> >> > > configurations on an existing topic?
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > Randall
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:20 PM Randall Hauch <
> > > > > > rha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > > The KIP deadline for 1.1 has already passed, but
> I'd
> > > like
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> restart
> > > > > > > >> >> > this
> > > > > > > >> >> > > > discussion so that we make the next release. I've
> not
> > > yet
> > > > > > > >> addressed
> > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > > previous comment about *existing* topics, but I'll
> > try
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> >> over
> > > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > > next few weeks. Any other
> > > comments/suggestions/questions?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > > Randall
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Randall Hauch <
> > > > > > > rha...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> Oops. Yes, I meant “replication factor”.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > On Oct 4, 2017, at 7:18 PM, Ted Yu <
> > > > yuzhih...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Randall:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > bq. AdminClient currently allows changing the
> > > > > replication
> > > > > > > >> >> factory.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > By 'replication factory' did you mean
> 'replication
> > > > > > factor' ?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > Cheers
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Randall Hauch <
> > > > > > > >> rha...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> Currently the KIP's scope is only topics that
> > don't
> > > > yet
> > > > > > > >> exist,
> > > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > >> >> > we
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> have
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> to cognizant of race conditions between tasks
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > >> >> > > connector.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> I
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> think it is worthwhile to consider whether the
> > > KIP's
> > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> expand to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> also address *existing* partitions, though it
> may
> > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> >> > appropriate
> > > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> have as much control when changing the topic
> > > settings
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > >> >> > existing
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> topic. For example, changing the number of
> > > partitions
> > > > > > > (which
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > KIP
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> considers a "topic-specific setting" even
> though
> > > > > > > technically
> > > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > > > >> >> > > not)
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> shouldn't be done blindly due to the
> partitioning
> > > > > > impacts,
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> >> IIRC
> > > > > > > >> >> > > you
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> can't reduce them (which we could verify before
> > > > > > applying).
> > > > > > > >> >> Also, I
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> don't
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> think the AdminClient currently allows changing
> > the
> > > > > > > >> replication
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> factory. I
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> think changing the topic configs is less
> > > problematic
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > >> from
> > > > > > > >> >> what
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> makes
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> sense for connectors to verify/change and from
> > what
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> AdminClient
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> supports.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> Even if we decide that it's not appropriate to
> > > change
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> settings
> > > > > > > >> >> > on
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> an
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> existing topic, I do think it's advantageous to
> > at
> > > > > least
> > > > > > > >> notify
> > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> connector (or task) prior to the first record
> > sent
> > > > to a
> > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > >> >> topic
> > > > > > > >> >> > > so
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> that
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> the connector can fail or issue a warning if it
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > meet
> > > > > > > >> its
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> requirements.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> Randall
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Stephane
> Maarek
> > <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> steph...@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> Hi Randall,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> Thanks for the KIP. I like it
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> What happens when the target topic is already
> > > > created
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > configs
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> do
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> not match?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> i.e. wrong RF, num partitions, or missing /
> > > > additional
> > > > > > > >> configs?
> > > > > > > >> >> > Will
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> you
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> attempt to apply the necessary changes or
> throw
> > an
> > > > > > error?
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> Stephane
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> On 24/5/17, 5:59 am, "Mathieu Fenniak" <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > mathieu.fenn...@replicon.com
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> Ah, yes, I see you a highlighted part that
> > > > > should've
> > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > >> >> this
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> clear
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> to me the first read. :-) Much clearer
> now!
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> By the way, enjoyed your Debezium talk in
> > NYC.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> Looking forward to this Kafka Connect
> change;
> > > it
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> allow
> > > > > > > >> >> me
> > > > > > > >> >> > to
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> remove a post-deployment tool that I hacked
> > > > > together
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> purpose
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> of ensuring auto-created topics have the
> > right
> > > > > > config.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> Mathieu
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Randall
> > > Hauch <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > rha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>> Thanks for the quick feedback, Mathieu. Yes,
> > the
> > > > > first
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> configuration
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> rule
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>> whose regex matches will be applied, and no
> > other
> > > > > rules
> > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> used. I've
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>> updated the KIP to try to make this more
> clear,
> > > but
> > > > > let
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > >> >> know
> > > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> it's
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>> still not clear.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>> Randall
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Mathieu
> > > Fenniak <
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>> mathieu.fenn...@replicon.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> Hi Randall,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> Awesome, very much looking forward to this.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> It isn't 100% clear from the KIP how
> multiple
> > > > > > > config-based
> > > > > > > >> >> rules
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> would
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> be applied; it looks like the first
> > > configuration
> > > > > rule
> > > > > > > >> whose
> > > > > > > >> >> > regex
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> matches the topic name will be used, and no
> > > other
> > > > > > rules
> > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> applied. Is that correct? (I wasn't sure
> if
> > it
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > >> >> cascade
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> together multiple matching rules...)
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> Looks great,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> Mathieu
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Randall
> > Hauch <
> > > > > > > >> >> > rha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> Hi, all.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> We recently added the ability for Kafka
> > Connect
> > > > to
> > > > > > > create
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> *internal*
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> topics
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> using the new AdminClient, but it still
> would
> > > be
> > > > > > great
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > >> >> Kafka
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> Connect
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> could do this for new topics that result
> from
> > > > > source
> > > > > > > >> >> connector
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> records.
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> I've outlined an approach to do this in
> > > "KIP-158
> > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > >> >> Connect
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>> should
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> allow
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> source connectors to set topic-specific
> > > settings
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> topics".
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> *
> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> 158%3A+Kafka+Connect+should+
> > > > > > allow+source+connectors+to+
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> set+topic-specific+settings+for+new+topics
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> <
> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> 158%3A+Kafka+Connect+should+
> > > > > > allow+source+connectors+to+
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>> set+topic-specific+settings+for+new+topics>*
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> Please take a look and provide feedback.
> > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>> Randall
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > *Gwen Shapira*
> > > > > Product Manager | Confluent
> > > > > 650.450.2760 <(650)%20450-2760> | @gwenshap
> > > > > Follow us: Twitter <https://twitter.com/ConfluentInc> | blog
> > > > > <http://www.confluent.io/blog>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
