I'm still +1 and like the simplification. Randall
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:54 PM Magesh Nandakumar <mage...@confluent.io> wrote: > I have updated the KIP to remove the `Ignore` policy and also the > useOverrides() > method in the interface. > Thanks a lot for your thoughts, Colin. I believe this certainly simplifies > the KIP. > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:44 PM Magesh Nandakumar <mage...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > Unless anyone has objections, I'm going to update the KIP to remove the > > `Ignore` policy and make `None` as the default. I will also remove the ` > > default boolean useOverrides()` in the interface which was introduced for > > the purpose of backward compatibility. > > > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:27 PM Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I have also seen users include in connector configs the `producer.*` and > >> `consumer.*` properties that should go into the worker configs. But > those > >> don't match, and the likelihood that someone is already using > >> `producer.override.*` or `consumer.override.*` properties in their > >> connector configs does seem pretty tiny. > >> > >> I'd be fine with removing the `Ignore` for backward compatibility. Still > >> +1 > >> either way. > >> > >> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:23 PM Magesh Nandakumar <mage...@confluent.io> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > To add more details regarding the backward compatibility; I have > >> generally > >> > seen users trying to set "producer.request.timeout.ms > >> > <http://producer.override.request.timeout.ms/>" in their connector > >> config > >> > under the assumption that it will get used and would never come back > to > >> > remove it. The initial intent of the KIP was to use the same prefix > but > >> > since that potentially collided with MM2 configs, we agreed to use a > >> > different prefix "producer.override". With this context, I think the > >> > likelihood of someone using this is very small and should generally > not > >> be > >> > a problem. > >> > > >> > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:15 PM Magesh Nandakumar < > mage...@confluent.io> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Colin, > >> > > > >> > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. As you said, the possibilities of > >> someone > >> > > having "producer.override.request.timeout.ms" in their connector > >> config > >> > > in AK 2.2 or lower is very slim. But the key thing is if in case, > >> someone > >> > > has it AK2.2 doesn't do anything with it and it silently ignores the > >> > > configuration. If others think that it's not really a problem, then > >> I'm > >> > > fine with removing the complicated compatibility issue. > >> > > > >> > > I have explicitly called out the behavior when the exception is > >> thrown. > >> > > > >> > > Let me know what you think. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Magesh > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:45 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Hi Magesh, > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks for the KIP. It looks good overall. > >> > >> > >> > >> > default boolean useOverrides() { > >> > >> > return true; > >> > >> > } > >> > >> > >> > >> Is this method really needed? As I understand, nobody should have > >> any > >> > >> connector client config overrides set right now, since they don't > do > >> > >> anything right now. > >> > >> > >> > >> For example, you wouldn't expect a Kafka 2.2 installation to have " > >> > >> producer.override.request.timeout.ms" set, since that doesn't do > >> > >> anything in Kafka 2.2. So is the option to ignore it in Kafka 2.3 > >> > really > >> > >> necessary? > >> > >> > >> > >> Can you add some details about what happens if a > >> > >> PolicyValidationException is thrown? I'm assuming that we fail to > >> > create > >> > >> the new Connector, I'm not sure if that's completely spelled out > >> > (unless I > >> > >> missed it). > >> > >> > >> > >> best, > >> > >> Colin > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, May 9, 2019, at 08:05, Rajini Sivaram wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Magesh, > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Thanks for the KIP, +1 (binding) > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Regards, > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Rajini > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:55 PM Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Nice work, Magesh. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > +1 (binding) > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Randall > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 7:22 PM Magesh Nandakumar < > >> > >> mage...@confluent.io> > >> > >> > > wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks a lot Chris. So far, the KIP has one non-binding vote > >> and > >> > I'm > >> > >> > > still > >> > >> > > > looking forward to the KIP to be voted by Friday's deadline. > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:00 AM Chris Egerton < > >> > chr...@confluent.io> > >> > >> > > wrote: > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > Hi Magesh, > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > This looks great! Very excited to see these changes finally > >> > >> coming to > >> > >> > > > > Connect. > >> > >> > > > > +1 (non-binding) > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Cheers, > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Chris > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 9:51 AM Magesh Nandakumar < > >> > >> mage...@confluent.io > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Hi All, > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > I would like to start a vote on > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-458%3A+Connector+Client+Config+Override+Policy > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > The discussion thread can be found here > >> > >> > > > > > < > >> > >> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg97124.html>. > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Thanks, > >> > >> > > > > > Magesh > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
