HI Chrise,

You are right about the "admin." prefix creating conflicts. Here are few
options that I can think of

1. Use `dlq.admin` since admin client is used only for DLQ. But this might
not really be the case in the future. So, we should possibly drop this idea
:)
2.  Use `connector.producer`, `connector.consumer` and `connector.admin` -
provides better context that its connector specific property
3.  Use `producer.override`, '`consumer.override` and `admin.override` -
provides better clarity that these are overrides.

I don't have a strong opinion in choosing between #2 and #3. Let me
know what you think.

Thanks
Magesh

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:25 AM Chris Egerton <chr...@confluent.io> wrote:

> Hi Magesh,
>
> Next round :)
>
> 1. It looks like MM2 will also support "admin." properties that affect
> AdminClients it creates and uses, which IIUC is the same prefix name to be
> used for managing the DLQ for sink connectors in this KIP. Doesn't that
> still leave room for conflict? I'm imagining a scenario like this: a
> Connect worker is configured to use the
> PrincipalConnectorClientConfigPolicy, someone tries to start an instance of
> an MM2 sink with "admin." properties beyond just "admin.sasl.jaas.config",
> and gets rejected because those properties are then interpreted by the
> worker as overrides for the AdminClient it uses to manage the DLQ.
> 2. (LGTM)
> 3. I'm convinced by this, as long as nobody else identifies a common use
> case that would involve a similar client config policy implementation that
> would be limited to a small set of whitelisted configs. For now keeping the
> PrincipalConnectorClientConfigPolicy sounds fine to me.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:30 PM Magesh Nandakumar <mage...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I also have a draft implementation of the KIP
> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6624. I would still need to include
> > more tests and docs but I thought it would be useful to have this for the
> > KIP discussion. Looking forward to all of your valuable feedback.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Magesh
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:27 PM Magesh Nandakumar <mage...@confluent.io
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Chrise,
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for your feedback. I will address them in order of your
> > > questions/comments.
> > >
> > > 1. Thanks for bringing this to my attention about KIP-382. I had a
> closer
> > > look at the KIP and IIUC, the KIP allows `consumer.` prefix for
> > SourceConnector
> > > and producer. prefix for SinkConnector since those are additional
> > > connector properties to help resolve the Kafka cluster other than the
> one
> > > Connect framework knows about. Whereas, the proposal in KIP-458 applies
> > > producer policies for SinkConnectors and consumer policies
> > > SourceConnectors.  So, from what I understand this new policy should
> work
> > > without any issues even for Mirror Maker 2.0.
> > > 2. I have updated the KIP to use a default value of null and use that
> to
> > > determine if we need to ignore overrides.
> > > 3. I would still prefer to keep the special
> > PrincipalConnectorClientConfigPolicy
> > > since that is one of the most common use cases one would choose to use
> > this
> > > feature. If we make it a general case, that would involve users
> requiring
> > > to add additional configuration and they might require well more than
> > just
> > > the list of configs but might also want some restriction on values. If
> > the
> > > concern is about users wanting principal and also other configs, it
> would
> > > still be possible by means of a custom implementation. As is, I would
> > > prefer to keep the proposal to be the same for this. Let me know your
> > > thoughts.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Magesh
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 3:44 PM Chris Egerton <chr...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Magesh,
> > >>
> > >> This is an exciting KIP! I have a few questions/comments but overall I
> > >> like
> > >> the direction it's headed in and hope to see it included in the
> Connect
> > >> framework soon.
> > >>
> > >> 1. With the proposed "consumer.", "producer.", and "admin." prefixes,
> > how
> > >> will this interact with connectors such as the upcoming Mirror Maker
> 2.0
> > >> (KIP-382) that already support properties with those prefixes? Would
> it
> > be
> > >> possible for a user to configure MM2 with those properties without
> them
> > >> being interpreted as Connect client overrides, without isolating MM2
> > onto
> > >> its own cluster and using the IgnoreConnectorClientConfigPolicy
> policy?
> > >> 2. Is the IgnoreConnectorClientConfigPolicy class necessary? The
> default
> > >> for the connector.client.config.policy property could simply be null
> > >> instead of a new policy that, as far as I can tell, isn't an actual
> > policy
> > >> in that its validate(...) method is never invoked and instead
> > represents a
> > >> special case to the Connect framework that says "Drop all overrides
> and
> > >> never use me".
> > >> 3. The PrincipalConnectorClientConfigPolicy seems like a specific
> > instance
> > >> of a more general use case: allow exactly a small set of overrides and
> > no
> > >> others. Why not generalize here and create a policy that accepts a
> list
> > of
> > >> allowed overrides during configuration?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks again for the KIP.
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 2:53 PM Magesh Nandakumar <
> mage...@confluent.io
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi all,
> > >> >
> > >> > I've posted "KIP-458: Connector Client Config Override Policy",
> which
> > >> > allows users to override the connector client configurations based
> on
> > a
> > >> > policy defined by the administrator.
> > >> >
> > >> > The KIP can be found at
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-458%3A+Connector+Client+Config+Override+Policy
> > >> > .
> > >> >
> > >> > Looking forward for the discussion on the KIP and all of your
> > thoughts &
> > >> > feedback on this enhancement to Connect.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Magesh
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to