*I guess that's right, too! * But the name `ProtobufNativeAdvancedSchemaCompatibilityCheck` is better, because we don't know whether the future will have V2, V3. The official solution can be called `ProtobufNativeOfficialSchemaCompatibilityCheck`, or is a good `ProtobufNativeXXXXXXXXSchemaCompatibilityCheck` third-party solution.
I've updated my design in PIP issue. 1. A new ProtobufNativeSchemaAdvanceCompatibilityCheck, rather than a ProtobufNativeSchemaCompatibilityCheck different validator implementation. 2. Remove the 'builder' 3. Clarify the relationship between newSchema, existingSchema, and writtenSchema in canRead. Help to see if the description is comprehensive and what changes and improvements need to be made. Thanks, sinan Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月9日周四 17:35写道： > I like Bo's suggestion - I haven't realized each schema type > compatibility check is actually a plugin. > It makes sense for any schema type checks to evolve, sometimes in a > non-backward compatible way hence having two plugins like > protobufNativeSchemaCompatabilityCheckV1 and then > protobufNativeSchemaCompatabilityCheckV2 and then > protobufNativeSchemaCompatabilityCheckV3 makes sense to me. > > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 5:49 AM 丛搏 <bog...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi siNan: > > > > From my point of view, it is just a plug-in. I don't think it is > > necessary to add configuration for the plugin. > > This is meaningless, and it will increase the difficulty of use for > users. > > > > > > SiNan Liu <liusinan1...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月8日周三 15:54写道： > > > > > > Hi, bo. > > > > > > 1. I understand what you say, to develop a new > > > `ProtobufNativeAdvancedSchemaCompatibilityCheck`, rather than changing > > > existing `ProtobufNativeSchemaCompatibilityCheck`. But I found a few > > small > > > problems: > > > > > > （1）ProtobufNativeAdvancedSchemaCompatibilityCheck and > > > ProtobufNativeSchemaCompatibilityCheck schemaType is PROTOBUF_NATIVE. > It > > > looks like both checkers are PROTOBUF not using AVRO-PROTOBUF's > "native" > > > implementation, which leads to some problems or "unreasonable" and > gives > > me > > > some extended thinking and questions. > > > > > `CompatibilityCheck ` its only a plugin. > > `ProtobufNativeSchemaCompatibilityCheck` may sooner or later leave the > > stage, when `ProtobufNativeAdvancedSchemaCompatibilityCheck` is > > stable, we can make it the default Checker. > > > > It is just a plug-in, users can change it at will and ensure that it > > is used correctly > > > （2）In broker.conf > > > > > > `schemaRegistryCompatibilityCheckers`. If > > > ProtobufNativeSchemaCompatibilityCheck and > > > ProtobufNativeAdvancedSchemaCompatibilityCheck all set. This is going > to > > > overwrite each other. Because this is a map: > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/af1360fb167c1f9484fda5771df3ea9b21d1440b/pulsar-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/service/schema/SchemaRegistryService.java#L36-L44 > > > > > > ```java > > > > > > Map<SchemaType, SchemaCompatibilityCheck> checkers = new HashMap<>(); > > > > > > for (String className : checkerClasses) { > > > > > > SchemaCompatibilityCheck schemaCompatibilityCheck = > > > Reflections.createInstance(className, > > > > > > SchemaCompatibilityCheck.class, > > > Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader()); > > > > > > checkers.put(schemaCompatibilityCheck.getSchemaType(), > > > schemaCompatibilityCheck); > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > Is this a big problem or a small one? Is it possible or unnecessary? > > Maybe > > > we can write in the documentation that protobufNative checkers can only > > > choose one of the two? Why are there two Checkers for different > > > implementations of the same schemaType? Why not the checker to create > > > different validator, so we don not have to change > > > schemaRegistryCompatibilityCheckers. > > > > users can only use one, not two, which will bring complexity to users > > > > > > > > （3）And after the update to > > ProtobufNativeAdvancedSchemaCompatibilityCheck. > > > Existing topics previously only checked the name of the root message, > not > > > the content of protobuf. > > > > > > What if the user wants both Checkers? > > > > > > Set to ProtobufNativeAdvancedSchemaCompatibilityCheck, affect the topic > > of > > > the existing schema? > > > > > > Older topics still use the old checker, and newer topics or certain > older > > > topics use the new advancedchecker. > > > > > when `ProtobufNativeAdvancedSchemaCompatibilityCheck` stable, > > users will not choose `ProtobufNativeSchemaCompatibilityCheck`. > > because it not a complete checker. > > > （4）So should we have one schemaType for a checker? > protobufNativeChecker > > > can have as many different implementation classes as possible. This > > > classname configuration in PIP, let's see if it can be set at the topic > > > level. In the current PIP design I just load this parameter into the > > > checker when the broker is started and the checkers map is set up. Can > I > > do > > > this in the new normal pr if I want to support topic level? Or perfect > it > > > here? > > > > > > Add a call PROTOBUF_NATIVE_ADVANCE schemaType corresponding > > > ProtobufNativeAdvancedSchemaCompatibilityCheck? (Seems to be more > > trouble). > > > > > > Sorry I can not use the computer and network in the company, I use my > > > mobile phone to reply to the email, the format may be a bit messy. > Please > > > understand. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > sinan > > > > > > > > > 丛搏 <bog...@apache.org> 于 2023年3月7日周二 下午11:39写道： > > > > > > > SiNan Liu <liusinan1...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月7日周二 13:22写道： > > > > > > > > > > Great to see your comment, bo! > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first way. The protobuf website has a description of the > > rules, > > > > but > > > > > no plans to implement them. > > > > > https://protobuf.dev/programming-guides/proto/#updating > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/protobuf > > > > maybe ask here > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I think this PIP can be divided into two parts. > > > > > (1) Add a flag(`ValidatorClassName`), load it into > > > > > `ProtobufNativeSchemaCompatibilityCheck` when the broker starts. > > > > > ValidatorClassName is empty by default, and the implementation > > continues > > > > as > > > > > before, with no change for the user. > > > > > > > > `ProtobufNativeSchemaCompatibilityCheck` is a plugin in `broker.conf` > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > schemaRegistryCompatibilityCheckers=org.apache.pulsar.broker.service.schema.JsonSchemaCompatibilityCheck,org.apache.pulsar.broker.service.schema.AvroSchemaCompatibilityCheck,org.apache.pulsar.broker.service.schema.ProtobufNativeSchemaCompatibilityCheck > > > > ``` > > > > I do not recommend that we directly modify this plugin and continue > to > > > > add configuration items, which will cause trouble for users. > > > > We have a lot of configs and it's getting very unwieldy. > > > > in my opinion, we don't change > > > > > > > > > > > `org.apache.pulsar.broker.service.schema.ProtobufNativeSchemaCompatibilityCheck`, > > > > it is a simple implementation, it doesn't go wrong very often, most > > > > users will use it. we can add another ProtobufNativeCheck named > > > > `ProtobufNativeAdvancedSchemaCompatibilityCheck ` or other. in this > > > > way, we don't need to add this flag. There is no need to consider > > > > compatibility, it is just a plug-in and will not affect current > logic. > > > > If the user needs it, just change the plugin to the new > implementation > > > > > > > > > ```java > > > > > ProtobufNativeSchemaValidator DEFAULT = (fromDescriptors, > > > > toDescriptor) > > > > > -> { > > > > > for (Descriptors.Descriptor fromDescriptor : > > fromDescriptors) { > > > > > // The default implementation only checks if the root > > message > > > > > has changed. > > > > > if > > > > > (!fromDescriptor.getFullName().equals(toDescriptor.getFullName())) > { > > > > > throw new ProtoBufCanReadCheckException("Protobuf > > root > > > > > message isn't allow change!"); > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > }; > > > > > ``` > > > > > `ValidatorClassName` value also can be set to the current > > implementation > > > > of > > > > > PIP add > > > > > > > > > > > > `org.apache.pulsar.broker.service.schema.validator.ProtobufNativeSchemaBreakValidatorImpl`. > > > > > > > > > > (2) Recoding the `ProtobufNativeSchemaCompatibilityCheck`. Through > > the > > > > flag > > > > > (`ValidatorClassName`) to build different > > > > `ProtobufNativeSchemaValidator`. > > > > > Isn't it just a plug-in? The user can develop and choose a > different > > > > > `ProtobufNativeSchemaValidator`. I think it didn't change the > logic, > > it > > > > > just allowed him to expand it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this PIP should be an enhancement and supplement to the > > function, > > > > > and there is no such thing as unnecessary and meaningless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > sinan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 丛搏 <bog...@apache.org> 于2023年3月7日周二 11:53写道： > > > > > > > > > > > I think we have two ways to do that. > > > > > > > > > > > > First way: We need to advance the improvement of java in > protobuf. > > Ask > > > > > > if they have plans to improve. > > > > > > > > > > > > Second way: the new PROTOBUF_NATIVE `SchemaCompatibilityCheck` > > should > > > > > > be implemented as a plugin, don't change any existing plugin > logic > > > > > > (it's simple and already used). I don't recommend adding flags > for > > > > > > rollback, it adds configuration and makes little sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Bo > > > > > > > > > > > > Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月6日周一 23:00写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you convert the code block which is actually a quote in the > > > > > > > beginning of the PIP to something which doesn't require to > scroll > > > > > > > horizontally so much? > > > > > > > Use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/getting-started-with-writing-and-formatting-on-github/basic-writing-and-formatting-syntax#quoting-text > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's improve the clarity of what you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "the PROTOBUF uses avro struct to store." > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > When Schema type PROTOBUF is used, Pulsar Client assumes the > > object > > > > given > > > > > > > to it as message data is an auto-generated POJO containing the > > > > > > annotations > > > > > > > encoding the schema. The client is using a converter, which > > converts > > > > a > > > > > > > Protobuf schema descriptor into an Avro schema and sends that > as > > the > > > > > > Schema > > > > > > > of the producer/consumer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "On the broker side, protobuf and avro both use SchemaData > > converted > > > > to > > > > > > > org.apache.avro.Schema." > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > Since the schema is an Avro schema, the implementation of > > > > compatibility > > > > > > > check on the broker side is to simply re-use the compatibility > > check > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > AVRO schema type. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "ProtobufSchema is different from ProtobufNativeSchema in > schema > > > > > > > compatibility check it uses avro-protobuf. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://central.sonatype.com/artifact/org.apache.avro/avro-protobuf/1.11.1/overview > > > > > > > But the current implementation of ProtobufNative schema > > compatibility > > > > > > > check only > > > > > > > checked if the root message name is changed." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > PROTOBUF_NATIVE schema type is different. > > > > > > > The client is actually using Protobuf Descriptor as the schema, > > as > > > > > > opposed > > > > > > > to Avro schema of PROTOBUF schema type. In the broker, the > > > > > > PROTOBUF_NATIVE > > > > > > > compatibility check actually hasn't implemented any rule, > besides > > > > one: > > > > > > > checking if the root message name has changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. For now, there is no official or third-party solution > for > > > > > > ProtoBuf > > > > > > > > compatibility. If in the future have better solutions of a > > third > > > > > > party or > > > > > > > > the official, we develop new ProtobufNativeSchemaValidator > > and > > > > use, > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > add a flag. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who do you need to make that configurable? Once you found a > > third > > > > > > party, > > > > > > > just switch to it? Who knows, maybe you never will. Introduce > it > > > > when you > > > > > > > find it, not now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We improve in ProtobufNativeSchemaCompatibilityCheck BACKWARD, > > > > FORWARD > > > > > > > > these strategies. As with the AVRO implementation, protobuf > > > > > > compatibility > > > > > > > > checking need implementing the canRead method. *This will > check > > > > that > > > > > > > > the writtenschema can be read by readSchema.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely disagree. > > > > > > > Avro implementation is confusing for our use case. Don't copy > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public void checkCompatible(SchemaData from, SchemaData to, > > > > > > > SchemaCompatibilityStrategy strategy) > > > > > > > throws IncompatibleSchemaException { > > > > > > > Descriptor fromDescriptor = > > > > > > > ProtobufNativeSchemaUtils.deserialize(from.getData()); > > > > > > > Descriptor toDescriptor = > > > > > > > ProtobufNativeSchemaUtils.deserialize(to.getData()); > > > > > > > switch (strategy) { > > > > > > > case BACKWARD_TRANSITIVE: > > > > > > > case BACKWARD: > > > > > > > case FORWARD_TRANSITIVE: > > > > > > > case FORWARD: > > > > > > > case FULL_TRANSITIVE: > > > > > > > case FULL: > > > > > > > checkRootMessageChange(fromDescriptor, > toDescriptor, > > > > > > strategy); > > > > > > > return; > > > > > > > case ALWAYS_COMPATIBLE: > > > > > > > return; > > > > > > > default: > > > > > > > throw new IncompatibleSchemaException("Unknown > > > > > > > SchemaCompatibilityStrategy."); > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would rename : > > > > > > > from --> currentSchema > > > > > > > to --> newSchema > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Use that switch case and have a method for each like: > > > > > > > validateBackwardsCompatibility(currentSchema, newSchema) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dislike canRead and usage of writtenSchema, since you have > two > > > > > > completely > > > > > > > different use cases: from the producing side and the consumer > > side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schemaValidatorBuilder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dislike this proposal. IMO Avro implementation is way too > > > > > > complicated. > > > > > > > Why not have a simple function for validation for each switch > > case > > > > above? > > > > > > > Why do we need strategy and builder, and all this complexity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Here are the basic compatibility rules we've defined:* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO it's impossible to read the validation rules as you > described > > > > them. > > > > > > > I wrote how they should be structured numerous times above. > > > > > > > I can't validate them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, the current design is very hard to read. > > > > > > > Please try to avoid jumping into code sections. > > > > > > > Write a high level design section, in which you describe in > words > > > > what > > > > > > you > > > > > > > plan to do. > > > > > > > Write the validation rules in the structure that is easy to > > > > understand: > > > > > > > rules per each compatibility check, and use proper words > (current > > > > schema, > > > > > > > new schema), since new schema can be once used for read and > once > > > > used for > > > > > > > write. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In its current form it takes too much time to understand the > > design, > > > > and > > > > > > it > > > > > > > shouldn't be the case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Asaf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 3:58 PM SiNan Liu < > liusinan1...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi! I updated the explanation of some things in the PIP > issue. > > And > > > > also > > > > > > > > added a new “flag” in the conf is used as the different > > > > > > > > ProtobufNativeSchemaValidator implementation, also set > > > > > > > > ProtobufNativeSchemaValidator default only check whether the > > name > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > root message is the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > sinan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月5日周日 20:21写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:33 PM SiNan Liu < > > liusinan1...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please explain how a Protobuf Schema descriptor > > can > > > > be > > > > > > > > > validated > > > > > > > > > > > for backward compatibility check using Avro based > > > > compatibility > > > > > > > > rules? > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't it expect the schema to be Avro, but it is > > actually a > > > > > > > > Protobuf > > > > > > > > > > > descriptor? > > > > > > > > > > > Is there some translation happening? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. *You can take a quick look at the previous design, the > > > > PROTOBUF > > > > > > uses > > > > > > > > > > avro struct to store.* > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/1954 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/579f22c8449be287ee1209a477aeaad346495289/pulsar-client/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/client/impl/schema/ProtobufSchema.java#L59-L61 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/579f22c8449be287ee1209a477aeaad346495289/pulsar-client/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/client/impl/schema/ProtobufSchema.java#L110-L115 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. So to summarize your code (easier to write it than send > > > > links): > > > > > > > > > * Pulsar Client, when used with Protobuf Schema, actually > > > > converts > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > Protobuf descriptor into an Avro Schema (using code found > > inside > > > > Avro > > > > > > > > > library) and saves that Avro schema as the schema. It's not > > > > saving > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > protobuf descriptor at all. Very confusing I have to add - > > never > > > > > > expected > > > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > This explains why In the ProtobufSchemaCompatibilityCheck > > they > > > > just > > > > > > > > extend > > > > > > > > > the Avro without doing any translation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now thatI finally understand this, I can say that: you > *must* > > > > explain > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > in the motivation part in your PIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. *On the broker side, protobuf and avro both use > > `SchemaData` > > > > > > > > converted > > > > > > > > > > to `org.apache.avro.Schema`.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/579f22c8449be287ee1209a477aeaad346495289/pulsar-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/service/ServerCnx.java#L1280-L1293 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/579f22c8449be287ee1209a477aeaad346495289/pulsar-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/service/schema/ProtobufSchemaCompatibilityCheck.java#L26-L31 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/579f22c8449be287ee1209a477aeaad346495289/pulsar-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/service/schema/AvroSchemaBasedCompatibilityCheck.java#L47-L70 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually those links don't really help. > > > > > > > > > The main link that helps is: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/ec102fb024a6ea2b195826778300f20e330dff06/pulsar-client/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/client/impl/schema/ProtobufSchema.java#L102-L122 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry - I don't understand. > > > > > > > > > > > I understand the different compatibility check > > strategies. > > > > > > > > > > > If you just spell them out here, then as you say, just > > > > translate > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > Protobuf Descriptor into an Avro schema and run the > Avro > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility validation, no? > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the answer is no, since you may want to > verify > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > things > > > > > > > > > > > when it comes to Protobuf, which are different then > Avro. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. > > > > > > > > > > *ProtobufSchema is different from ProtobufNativeSchema in > > that > > > > it > > > > > > uses > > > > > > > > > > avro-protobuf.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://central.sonatype.com/artifact/org.apache.avro/avro-protobuf/1.11.1/overview > > > > > > > > > > *ProtobufNativeSchema needs a native compatibility check, > > but > > > > > > there is > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > official or third party implementation. So this PIP does > > not > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > avro-protobuf for protobuf compatibility checking.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. *By the way, this is implemented in much the same way > > that > > > > > > Apache > > > > > > > > avro > > > > > > > > > > does compatibility checking.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/avro/blob/master/lang/java/avro/src/main/java/org/apache/avro/SchemaValidatorBuilder.java > > > > > > > > > > > `canReadStrategy`，`canBeReadStrategy`，`mutualReadStrategy` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/avro/blob/master/lang/java/avro/src/main/java/org/apache/avro/ValidateCanRead.java > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/avro/blob/master/lang/java/avro/src/main/java/org/apache/avro/ValidateCanBeRead.java > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/avro/blob/master/lang/java/avro/src/main/java/org/apache/avro/ValidateMutualRead.java > > > > > > > > > > *In `ValidateMutualRead.java`, the arguments of > > `canRead()` are > > > > > > > > > > writtenSchema and readSchema. We only need to change the > > order > > > > of > > > > > > > > > arguments > > > > > > > > > > we pass to `canRead()`.* > > > > > > > > > > ```java > > > > > > > > > > private void validateWithStrategy(Descriptors.Descriptor > > > > > > toValidate, > > > > > > > > > > Descriptors.Descriptor fromDescriptor) throws > > > > > > > > > ProtoBufCanReadCheckException > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > switch (strategy) { > > > > > > > > > > case CanReadExistingStrategy -> canRead(fromDescriptor, > > > > > > toValidate); > > > > > > > > > > case CanBeReadByExistingStrategy -> canRead(toValidate, > > > > > > > > fromDescriptor); > > > > > > > > > > case CanBeReadMutualStrategy -> { > > > > > > > > > > canRead(toValidate, fromDescriptor); > > > > > > > > > > canRead(fromDescriptor, toValidate); > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > private void canRead(Descriptors.Descriptor > writtenSchema, > > > > > > > > > > Descriptors.Descriptor readSchema) throws > > > > > > > > ProtoBufCanReadCheckException { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ProtobufNativeSchemaBreakCheckUtils.checkSchemaCompatibility(writtenSchema, > > > > > > > > > > readSchema); > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I get that you want to take inspiration from the existing > > Avro > > > > Schema > > > > > > > > > compatibility check, to do your code design. > > > > > > > > > I also understand you *won't* use any existing avro code > for > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > I also understand, you have to write the validation check > on > > your > > > > > > own, > > > > > > > > > since there is no 3rd party to explain that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only thing I can't understand are the actual rules as I > > wrote > > > > > > before, > > > > > > > > > since they are written confusingly. > > > > > > > > > So, I repeat what I asked before: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you should structure the validation rules > > differently: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Backward checks > > > > > > > > > ** List down rules, where use newSchema (the schema used by > > > > producer > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > consumer) and existingSchema (last schema used) > > > > > > > > > * Forward > > > > > > > > > ** List down rules, where use newSchema (the schema used by > > > > producer > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > consumer) and existingSchema (last schema used) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once that's accomplished I will be able to understand the > > > > different > > > > > > > > > validation rules for each compatibility check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > sinan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月1日周三 > 21:19写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 3:47 PM SiNan Liu < > > > > > > liusinan1...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I read it and they look identical. What's the > > difference > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > > them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Current avro,json, and protobuf schemas are all > > implemented > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > AVRO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean, they are all implemented based on > > > > Avro? You > > > > > > > > mean > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > protobuf schema is converted into an Avro Schema, > and > > > > then > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > Avro > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility validation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `org.apache.pulsar.broker.service.schema.ProtobufSchemaCompatibilityCheck` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `org.apache.pulsar.broker.service.schema.AvroSchemaCompatibilityCheck` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `org.apache.pulsar.broker.service.schema.JsonSchemaCompatibilityCheck` > > > > > > > > > > > > They all extends `AvroSchemaBasedCompatibilityCheck`, > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > `checkCompatible()` is the same implementation with > > `AVRO`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please explain how a Protobuf Schema descriptor > > can > > > > be > > > > > > > > > validated > > > > > > > > > > > for backward compatibility check using Avro based > > > > compatibility > > > > > > > > rules? > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't it expect the schema to be Avro, but it is > > actually a > > > > > > > > Protobuf > > > > > > > > > > > descriptor? > > > > > > > > > > > Is there some translation happening? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you should structure the validation rules > > > > differently: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Compatibility check strategy is described on the > > > > website > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://pulsar.apache.org/docs/next/schema-understand/#schema-compatibility-check-strategy > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. BACKWARD(CanReadExistingStrategy): Consumers using > > > > schema > > > > > > V3 can > > > > > > > > > > process > > > > > > > > > > > > data written by producers using the last schema > version > > > > V2. So > > > > > > V2 > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > "writtenSchema" and V3 is "readSchema". > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. FORWARD(CanBeReadByExistingStrategy): Consumers > > using > > > > the > > > > > > last > > > > > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > > > version V2 can process data written by producers > using > > a > > > > new > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > V3, > > > > > > > > > > > > even though they may not be able to use the full > > > > capabilities > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > schema. So V3 is "writtenSchema" and V2 is > > "readSchema". > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. FULL(CanBeReadMutualStrategy): Schemas are both > > > > backward and > > > > > > > > > forward > > > > > > > > > > > > compatible. > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema can evolve. The old version schema and the new > > > > version > > > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > be well understood. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry - I don't understand. > > > > > > > > > > > I understand the different compatibility check > > strategies. > > > > > > > > > > > If you just spell them out here, then as you say, just > > > > translate > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > Protobuf Descriptor into an Avro schema and run the > Avro > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility validation, no? > > > > > > > > > > > I believe the answer is no, since you may want to > verify > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > things > > > > > > > > > > > when it comes to Protobuf, which are different then > Avro. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the current state, I can't understand your design at > > all. > > > > > > Please > > > > > > > > > help > > > > > > > > > > > clarify that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So each strategy should have its own section. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The arguments of `canRead()` are writtenSchema and > > > > readSchema. > > > > > > As > > > > > > > > > we've > > > > > > > > > > > > just described, we only need to change the order of > > > > arguments > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > pass > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > `canRead()`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > sinan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> 于2023年2月27日周一 > > 20:49写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you can see the difference between ProtoBuf > and > > > > > > > > > ProtoBufNative: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://pulsar.apache.org/docs/next/schema-get-started/#protobufnative > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://pulsar.apache.org/docs/next/schema-get-started/#protobuf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I read it and they look identical. What's the > > difference > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > > them? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Current avro,json, and protobuf schemas are all > > > > implemented > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > AVRO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean, they are all implemented based on > > > > Avro? You > > > > > > > > mean > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > protobuf schema is converted into an Avro Schema, > and > > > > then > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > Avro > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility validation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Here are the basic compatibility rules we've > > defined:* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you should structure the validation rules > > > > > > differently: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Backward checks > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** List down rules, where use newSchema (the schema > > used > > > > by > > > > > > > > > producer > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > consumer) and existingSchema (last schema used) > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Forward > > > > > > > > > > > > > ** List down rules, where use newSchema (the schema > > used > > > > by > > > > > > > > > producer > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > consumer) and existingSchema (last schema used) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So each strategy should have its own section. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm saying this since you used "writttenSchema" > word > > but > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > represents > > > > > > > > > > > > > something completely different if it's backward or > > > > forward > > > > > > check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once you'll have that structure like that, I > > personally > > > > will > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > able > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > read and understand it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The motivation and problem statement are now good - > > > > thanks > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > improving > > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 8:20 AM SiNan Liu < > > > > > > > > liusinan1...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi! I updated the PIP issue again. This time I've > > added > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > > background > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some explanations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The compatibility check rules are already written > > in > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > Implementation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ProtoBufNative implements the same canRead method > > as > > > > Apache > > > > > > > > Avro. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It does this by checking whether the schema for > > > > writing and > > > > > > > > > reading > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatible. I also indicate whether the > > writtenSchema > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > readSchema of > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Backward, Forward, and Full strategies are the > old > > or > > > > the > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > version > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the schema. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sinan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> > 于2023年2月26日周日 > > > > 23:24写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, but this PIP lacks a lot of > background > > > > > > knowledge, > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add IMO for people to understand it. You don't > > need > > > > to > > > > > > > > explain > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > entire > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pulsar in this PIP, but at the very least a few > > > > > > paragraphs > > > > > > > > > > detailing > > > > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you need to know, to put you in context: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Start by saying Pulsar as a built-in > schema > > > > registry > > > > > > > > > inside > > > > > > > > > > > > Pulsar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > broker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Every time the client updates the > > schema, it > > > > > > uploads > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > broker. When that happens, it has a > feature > > > > which > > > > > > > > > validates > > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema version is compatible with the > > previous > > > > > > > > versions. > > > > > > > > > > There > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are 4 types > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of compatibility: Full, ... (complete and > > > > explain > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > > > > briefly) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Also explain Pulsar Schema registry > supports > > > > various > > > > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > protocols: Avro, protobuf native, ... > > (complete > > > > the > > > > > > > > rest), > > > > > > > > > > each > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > protocol > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has a schema which dictates how to serialize > > and > > > > > > > > deserialize > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > content into typed object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Explain in short what is protobuf native > > > > (compare > > > > > > > > protobuf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-native) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Please don't paste code instead of > > explaining. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Explain that protobuf native current > > > > validation > > > > > > check > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > composed of checking the root message > name > > is > > > > the > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the current > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema version and the new version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Explain briefly what is a root > message > > > > and its > > > > > > > > name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Explain the problem (list scenarios) > > that we > > > > have > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > > > > > protobuf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native schema only supports FULL > > compatibility > > > > > > > > > validation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding high level design - as in what you > > plan to > > > > do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest you add "High Level Design" and in it > > > > detail > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > plan > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate, per protobuf version, per > compatibility > > > > check > > > > > > > > > > (backward, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > forward, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full,...). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tried reading the implementation - for me , > > it's > > > > all > > > > > > over > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > place. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you please list in order what I wrote above, > and > > > > list the > > > > > > > > > > validation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with a good explanation why you validate it > like > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lastly, one you have all the validation rules > > clearly > > > > > > stated, > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it to document it properly so users can know > what > > > > > > validation > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > expect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Asaf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 5:10 PM SiNan Liu < > > > > > > > > > > liusinan1...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, my mistake. I removed the code and > > > > described the > > > > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the PROTOBUF_NATIVE schema compatibility > > checks. > > > > You > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > have a > > > > > > > > > > > > look. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> > > 于2023年2月22日周三 > > > > > > 21:16写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I read it but you're almost directly diving > > into > > > > the > > > > > > > > code - > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > take > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hours just to reverse engineer your design. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please include a "High Level > Design" > > > > section > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how you plan to tackle any issue? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I can read that section and explain to > > someone > > > > > > else > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it means the section is complete. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's leave the code to the PRs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 2:59 PM SiNan Liu < > > > > > > > > > > > > liusinan1...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I made a PIP to discuss: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19565 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can talk about the current design > here. > > > > > > Especially > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > field > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > type > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change check rules, please give your > > valuable > > > > > > advice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sinan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
