Hello guys,
Thank you for your suggestions!
I've made a short resume of all suggestions proposed for further
possible code corrections.
Since not all opinions match, let's review once again and decide.
#1. Support old csv format. Proposed by Jason.
Yes: Jason, Vahid
If backwards compatibility is important for this specific (and, I
believe, infrequent) case, ready to make corrections. Final word?
#2. Do not show group name for `--describe` output in case a single
`--group` is specified. Proposed by Jason.
Yes: Jason
Alternatively, the user will always expect the output to be the same
for any `--describe` query. Ready to make corrections if this is
important. Final word?
#3. GROUP column should not be the first in the row. Proposed by Jason.
Yes: Jason
No: Vahid
For the group offset configuration, the group entity appears to be
the top priority and starting a table with a GROUP column makes more
sense, I believe. Plus, it's quicker and easier to spot to which group
the offsets belong to.
Apply corrections or leave as is?
#4. Single regex vs multiple `--group` flags. Proposed by eazama..
There are a few reasons behind this. Firstly, there are no rules for
defining group names unlike for topic names that have their own
validation routine according to a simple regex. Group names may
contain any symbols possible and simply splitting them by comma won't
work, at least without using escape characters maybe. Secondly,
repetition of the `--group` flag had already been implemented for the
group deletion logic and we don't not want to break the backwards
compatibility. Finally, visually, it's a bit easier to read and
compose a long query with a large number of groups than throwing
everything into one very long string.
#5. Valid scenario where we would want to delete all consumer groups.
Asked by Vahid.
There should be one, I believe ;) Already received a few requests
from colleagues.
# KIP approvals:
Suman: +1
> Sat, 20 Oct 2018 17:10:16 GMT, <eazama...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a reason for using multiple --group flags over having it accept a
> regex?
>
> The topics command currently accepts a regex for most operations and doesn't
> support using
> multiple topics flags. It seems like it would be better to take a more
> standardized approach
> to providing this type of information.
>
>
>> On Oct 19, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Suman B N <sumannew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This eases debugging metadata information of consumer groups and offsets in
>> case of client hungs which we have been facing frequently.
>> +1 from me. Well done Alex!
>>
>> -Suman
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 8:36 PM Vahid Hashemian <vahid.hashem...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for proposing the KIP. Looks good to me overall.
>>>
>>> I agree with Jason's suggestion that it would be best to keep the current
>>> output format when a single '--group' is present. Because otherwise, there
>>> would be an impact to users who rely on the current output format. Also,
>>> starting with a GROUP column makes more sense to me.
>>>
>>> Also, and for my own info, is there a valid scenario where we would want to
>>> delete all consumer groups? It sounds to me like a potentially dangerous
>>> feature. I would imagine that it would help more with dev/test
>>> environments, where we normally have a few groups (for which the repeating
>>> '--group' option should work).
>>>
>>> Regards!
>>> --Vahid
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:28 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the KIP. I think it makes sense, especially since most of the
>>>> group apis are intended for batching anyway.
>>>>
>>>> The only questions I have are about compatibility. For example, the csv
>>>> format for resetting offsets is changed, so will we continue to support
>>> the
>>>> old format? Also, if only one `--group` option is passed, do you think
>>> it's
>>>> worth leaving it the group column out of the `--describe` output? That
>>>> would keep the describe output consistent with the current implementation
>>>> for the current usage. Finally, and this is just a nitpick, but do you
>>>> think it makes sense to put the group column first in the describe
>>> output?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Alex D <a.a.dunayev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello, friends!
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome to the Multiple Consumer Group Management feature for
>>>>> kafka-consumer-groups utility discussion thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> KIP is available here:
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-379%
>>>>> 3A+Multiple+Consumer+Group+Management
>>>>>
>>>>> Pull Request: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5726
>>>>>
>>>>> JIRA ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7471
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alexander Dunayevsky
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Suman*
>> *OlaCabs*
>
>
>
