Thank you Sophie! Added the case Matthias described in the Compatibility session.
________________________________ From: Sophie Blee-Goldman <sop...@confluent.io> Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 1:30 AM To: dev@kafka.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-462 : Use local thread id for KStreams Hey Boyang, I think this sounds great but one thing you might want to update is the "Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan" -- I agree having two instances in the same JVM is probably a rare occurrence but the (presumably less rare) situation Matthias described would also be affected in case of exposed thread ids. Just a small note Sophie On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 8:25 AM Boyang Chen <bche...@outlook.com> wrote: > Hey Bruno, > > "throttling purpose" means that we use `client.id` to track the request > quota and do the throttling based on that. So in that context, it is > expected to use same `client.id` for a certain set of consumers. > > Also thank you Guozhang for the comment! Merged with the KIP. > > Boyang > ________________________________ > From: Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io> > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 4:15 PM > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > Subject: Re: Fw: [DISCUSS] KIP-462 : Use local thread id for KStreams > > Hi Guozhang, > > What do you mean exactly with "throttling purposes"? > > @Boyang: Thank you for the KIP! > > Best, > Bruno > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 1:15 AM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Boyang, > > > > Thanks for the KIP. I think it makes sense. > > > > Just following up on the documentation part: since we are effectively > > removing this guard against same client.ids of instances --- and btw, > > semantically we would not forbid users to set the same client.ids anyways > > for throttling purposes for example --- it's worth augmenting the > > client.id > > config description by stating what users should expect client.id to be > > propagated to internal embedded clients, and therefore what's the > expected > > outcome if they choose to set same client.ids for different Streams > client. > > > > > > Otherwise, I've no further comments. > > > > Guozhang > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 3:42 PM Boyang Chen <bche...@outlook.com> wrote: > > > > > FYI > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: Boyang Chen <bche...@outlook.com> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 4:32 AM > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-462 : Use local thread id for KStreams > > > > > > Could we get more discussions on this thread? > > > > > > Boyang > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Boyang Chen <bche...@outlook.com> > > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 10:51 PM > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-462 : Use local thread id for KStreams > > > > > > Thanks for the explanation Matthias! Will enhance the KIP motivation by > > > your example. > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> > > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 3:42 PM > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-462 : Use local thread id for KStreams > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! > > > > > > I agree that the change makes sense, and not only for the static group > > > membership case. > > > > > > For example, if a user `closes()` a `KafkaStreams` client and creates a > > > new one (for example to recover failed threads), while the JVM is still > > > running, it is more intuitive that the thread names are number from 1 > to > > > X again, and not from X+1 to 2*x on restart. > > > > > > Also, the original idea about making thread names unique across > > > application is non-intuitive itself. It might make sense if there are > > > two instances of the same application within one JVM -- however, this > > > seems to be a rather rare case. Also, the only pattern for this use > case > > > seems to by dynamic scaling, and I believe we should actually void this > > > pattern by adding a `stopThread()` and `addThread()` method to > > > `KafkaStreams` directly. > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > On 4/25/19 11:13 PM, Boyang Chen wrote: > > > > Hey friends, > > > > > > > > I would like to start discussion for a very small KIP: > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-462%3A+Use+local+thread+id+for+KStreams > > > > > > > > it is trying to avoid sharing thread-id increment between multiple > > > stream instances configured in one JVM. This is an important fix for > > static > > > membership< > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-345%3A+Introduce+static+membership+protocol+to+reduce+consumer+rebalances > > > > > > to be effective for KStreams in edge case like changing ` > > group.instance.id` > > > throughout restarts due to thread-id interleaving. > > > > > > > > I will open the vote thread in the main while, since this is a very > > > small fix. Feel free to continue the discussion on this thread, thank > > you! > > > > > > > > Boyang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > >
