Thanks Randall. I like your suggestion: as you say, this would make it possible to usefully override the default client id properties.
I'm not sure how we would handle the dead-letter queue case though - maybe we could automatically add a "dlq-" prefix to the producer client id? If there is agreement on this change I will update the KIP and the PR (when I find some time). On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:12 AM Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Paul. Thanks for the update to KIP-411 to reflect adding defaults, and > creating/updating https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6097 to reflect > this > approach. > > Now that we've avoided adding a new config and have changed the default ` > client.id` to include some context, the connector name, and task number, I > think it makes overriding the client ID via worker config ` > producer.client.id` or `consumer.client.id` properties less valuable > because those overridden client IDs will be exactly the same for all > connectors and tasks. > > One one hand, we can leave this as-is, and any users that include ` > producer.client.id` and `consumer.client.id` in their worker configs keep > the same (sort of useless) behavior. In fact, most users would probably be > better off by removing these worker config properties and instead relying > upon the defaults. > > On the other, similar to what Ewen suggested earlier (in a different > context), we could add support for users to optionally use > "${connectorName}" and ${task}" in their overridden client ID property and > have Connect replace these (if found) with the connector name and task > number. Any existing properties that don't use these variables would behave > as-is, but this way the users could define their own client IDs yet still > get the benefit of uniquely identifying each of the clients. For example, > if my worker config contained the following: > > producer.client.id=connect-cluster-A-${connectorName}-${task}-producer > consumer.client.id=connect-cluster-A-${connectorName}-${task}-consumer > > Thoughts? > > Randall > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:18 PM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks Paul, this is great. This will make monitoring Connect a ton > easier. > > > > Ryanne > > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 1:24 PM Paul Davidson > > <pdavid...@salesforce.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > I have updated KIP-411 to propose changing the default client id - see: > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-411%3A+Make+default+Kafka+Connect+worker+task+client+IDs+distinct > > > > > > > > > There is also an PR ready to go here: > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6097 > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:39 PM Paul Davidson < > pdavid...@salesforce.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi everyone. We seem to have agreement that the ideal approach is to > > > > alter the default client ids. Now I'm wondering about the best > process > > to > > > > proceed. Will the change in default behaviour require a new KIP, > given > > it > > > > will affect existing deployments? Would I be best to repurpose this > > > > KIP-411, or am I best to create a new KIP? Thanks! > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 7:16 PM Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi, Paul. > > > >> > > > >> I concur with the others, and I like the new approach that avoids a > > new > > > >> configuration, especially because it does not change the behavior > for > > > >> anyone already using `producer.client.id` and/or ` > consumer.client.id > > `. > > > I > > > >> did leave a few comments on the PR. Perhaps the biggest one is > whether > > > the > > > >> producer used for the sink task error reporter (for dead letter > queue) > > > >> should be `connector-producer-<sink-task-id>`, and whether that is > > > >> distinct > > > >> enough from source tasks, which will be of the form > > > >> `connector-producer-<source-task-id>`. Maybe it is fine. (The other > > > >> comments were minor.) > > > >> > > > >> Best regards, > > > >> > > > >> Randall > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 1:19 PM Paul Davidson < > > pdavid...@salesforce.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks all. I've submitted a new PR with a possible > implementation: > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6097. Note I did not include > > the > > > >> > group > > > >> > ID as part of the default client ID, mainly to avoid the connector > > > name > > > >> > appearing twice by default. As noted in the original Jira ( > > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5061), leaving out > the > > > >> group > > > >> > ID > > > >> > could lead to naming conflicts if multiple clusters run the same > > Kafka > > > >> > cluster. This would probably not be a problem for many (including > > us) > > > as > > > >> > metrics exporters can usually be configured to include a cluster > ID > > > and > > > >> > guarantee uniqueness. Will be interested to hear your thoughts on > > > this. > > > >> > > > > >> > Paul > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:27 AM Ryanne Dolan < > ryannedo...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > I'd also prefer to avoid the new configuration property if > > possible. > > > >> > Seems > > > >> > > like a lighter touch without it. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Ryanne > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 7:25 PM Paul Davidson < > > > >> pdavid...@salesforce.com> > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Konstantine, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks for your feedback! I think my reply to Ewen covers > most > > of > > > >> your > > > >> > > > points, and I mostly agree. If there is general agreement > that > > > >> > changing > > > >> > > > the default behavior is preferable to a config change I will > > > update > > > >> my > > > >> > PR > > > >> > > > to use that approach. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Paul > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 5:55 PM Konstantine Karantasis < > > > >> > > > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Paul. > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I second Ewen and I intended to give similar feedback: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > 1) Can we avoid a config altogether? > > > >> > > > > 2) If we prefer to add a config anyways, can we use a set of > > > >> allowed > > > >> > > > values > > > >> > > > > instead of a boolean, even if initially these values are > only > > > >> two? As > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > > > discussion on Jira highlights, there is a potential for more > > > >> naming > > > >> > > > > conventions in the future, even if now the extra > functionality > > > >> > doesn't > > > >> > > > seem > > > >> > > > > essential. It's not optimal to have to deprecate a config > > > instead > > > >> of > > > >> > > just > > > >> > > > > extending its set of values. > > > >> > > > > 3) I agree, the config name sounds too general. How about > > > >> > > > > "client.ids.naming.policy" or "client.ids.naming" if you > want > > > two > > > >> > more > > > >> > > > > options? > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Konstantine > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 7:38 AM Ewen Cheslack-Postava < > > > >> > > e...@confluent.io> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Paul, > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. A few comments. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > To me, biggest question here is if we can fix this > behavior > > > >> without > > > >> > > > > adding > > > >> > > > > > a config. In particular, today, we don't even set the > > > client.id > > > >> > for > > > >> > > > the > > > >> > > > > > producer and consumer at all, right? The *only* way it is > > set > > > >> is if > > > >> > > you > > > >> > > > > > include an override in the worker config, but in that case > > you > > > >> need > > > >> > > to > > > >> > > > be > > > >> > > > > > explicitly opting in with a `producer.` or `consumer.` > > prefix, > > > >> i.e. > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > > > > settings are `producer.client.id` and `consumer.client.id > `. > > > >> > > > Otherwise, I > > > >> > > > > > think we're getting the default behavior where we generate > > > >> unique, > > > >> > > > > > per-process IDs, i.e. via this logic > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/consumer/KafkaConsumer.java#L662-L664 > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > If that's the case, would it maybe be possible to > compatibly > > > >> change > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > > > > default to use task IDs in the client ID, but only if we > > don't > > > >> see > > > >> > an > > > >> > > > > > existing override from the worker config? This would only > > > change > > > >> > the > > > >> > > > > > behavior when someone is using the default, but since the > > > >> default > > > >> > > would > > > >> > > > > > just use what is effectively a random ID that is useless > for > > > >> > > monitoring > > > >> > > > > > metrics, presumably this wouldn't affect any existing > > users. I > > > >> > think > > > >> > > > that > > > >> > > > > > would avoid having to introduce the config, give better > out > > of > > > >> the > > > >> > > box > > > >> > > > > > behavior, and still be a safe, compatible change to make. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Other than that, just two minor comments. On the config > > > naming, > > > >> not > > > >> > > > sure > > > >> > > > > > about a better name, but I think the config name could be > a > > > bit > > > >> > > clearer > > > >> > > > > if > > > >> > > > > > we need to have it. Maybe something including "task" like > > > >> > > > > > "task.based.client.ids" or something like that (or change > > the > > > >> type > > > >> > to > > > >> > > > be > > > >> > > > > an > > > >> > > > > > enum and make it something like > > task.client.ids=[default|task] > > > >> and > > > >> > > > leave > > > >> > > > > it > > > >> > > > > > open for extension in the future if needed). > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Finally, you have this: > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > *"Allow overriding client.id <http://client.id/> on a > > > >> > per-connector > > > >> > > > > > basis"* > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > This is a much more complex change, and would require > > > >> individual > > > >> > > > > > > connectors to be updated to support the change. In > > contrast, > > > >> the > > > >> > > > > proposed > > > >> > > > > > > approach would immediately allow detailed > > consumer/producer > > > >> > > > monitoring > > > >> > > > > > for > > > >> > > > > > > all existing connectors. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I don't think this is quite accurate. I think the reason > to > > > >> reject > > > >> > is > > > >> > > > > that > > > >> > > > > > for your particular requirement for metrics, it simply > > doesn't > > > >> give > > > >> > > > > enough > > > >> > > > > > granularity (there's only one value per entire connector), > > but > > > >> it > > > >> > > > doesn't > > > >> > > > > > require any changes to connectors. The framework allocates > > all > > > >> of > > > >> > > these > > > >> > > > > and > > > >> > > > > > there are already framework-defined config values that all > > > >> > connectors > > > >> > > > > share > > > >> > > > > > (some for only sinks or sources), so the framework can > > handle > > > >> all > > > >> > of > > > >> > > > this > > > >> > > > > > without changes to connectors. Further, with > > > connector-specific > > > >> > > > > overrides, > > > >> > > > > > you could get task-specific values if interpolation were > > > >> supported > > > >> > in > > > >> > > > the > > > >> > > > > > config value (as we now do with managed secrets). For > > example, > > > >> it > > > >> > > could > > > >> > > > > > support something like client.id=connector-${taskId} and > > the > > > >> task > > > >> > ID > > > >> > > > > would > > > >> > > > > > be substituted automatically into the string. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I don't necessarily like that solution (seems complicated > > and > > > >> not a > > > >> > > > great > > > >> > > > > > user experience), but it could work. > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > -Ewen > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 5:05 PM Paul Davidson < > > > >> > > > pdavid...@salesforce.com> > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion around the following > > KIP: > > > >> > > > > > > * > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-411%3A+Add+option+to+make+Kafka+Connect+task+client+ID+values+unique > > > >> > > > > > > < > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-411%3A+Add+option+to+make+Kafka+Connect+task+client+ID+values+unique > > > >> > > > > > > >* > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > This proposes a small change to allow Kafka Connect the > > > >> option to > > > >> > > > > > > auto-generate unique client IDs for each task. This > > enables > > > >> > > granular > > > >> > > > > > > monitoring of the producer / consumer client in each > task. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Feedback is appreciated, thanks in advance! > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Paul > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
