Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Boyang, "One thing I'm not fully convinced of is why we need to deprecate the server side auto topic creation logic," The point is to eventually remove auto topic creation logic from MetadataRequest. It makes no sense for MetadataRequest to cause topics to be created. It's an unintuitive hack. Ismael On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 10:12 PM Boyang Chen wrote: > Hey Justin and Jiamei, > > I read the KIP and skimmed over the discussion. One thing I'm not fully > convinced of is why we need to deprecate the server side auto topic > creation logic, which seems orthogonal towards whether a client wants to > create the topic or not. Won't it be more natural to assume that only when > both server and client agree on turning on the switch, will a topic get > created? > > Some clarifications would also be appreciated: > > 1. Could we include a link to KIP-464 and explain its relation to KIP-487? > It's very hard to read through the proposal when readers only have a > reference number to some KIP that is not briefed. > > 2. The KIP suggests, " In the producer, auto-creation of a topic will occur > through a specific request rather than through a side effect of requesting > metadata." Could we be specific such as whether we are going to introduce a > separate RPC, or just send another CreateTopicRequest? > > Boyang > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:51 AM jiamei xie wrote: > > > Hi all > > For > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-487%3A+Client-side+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer > > , It has not been updated for a long time. And I made some update, which > > has been pushed to https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8831 > > > > MetadataRequest has method Builder(List topics, boolean > > allowAutoTopicCreation) by which we can set whether to enable > > allowAutoTopicCreation from producer. > > By default, allowAutoTopicCreation on Producer is true. And only if when > > the allowAutoTopicCreation of Broker and Producer are true, the topic can > > be auto-created. > > > > Besides, the test cases are changed: > > There are 4 cases for brokerAutoTopicCreationEnable and > > producerAutoCreateTopicsPolicy, Check if the topic is created under these > > four cases. > > If brokerAutoTopicCreationEnable and producerAutoCreateTopicsPolicy > > are true: assertTrue(topicCreated) > > else : intercept[ExecutionException] > > > > Looking forward to your feedback and comments. Thanks. > > > > Best wishes > > Jiamei Xie > > > > On 2019/08/12 15:50:22, Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 11:12 AM, Ismael Juma > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > A few points: > > > > > > > > 1. I think the way backwards compatibility is being used here is not > > > > correct. Any functionality that is only enabled if set via a config > is > > > > backwards compatible. People may disagree with the functionality or > the > > > > config, but it's not a backwards compatibility issue. > > > > > > > > > > We are talking about both broker and producer as a single entity and > run > > > by the same team/users. Allowing newer producer to create topics on a > > older > > > broker when auto.create.topics.enable set to false, breaks server side > > > contract that this config offered from the beginning. IMO, it clearly > > > isn't backward compatible. User who set auto.create.topic.enable on > > broker > > > will not be the same who will turn it on producer side . > > > > > > > > > > 2. It's an interesting question if auto topic creation via the > producer > > > > should be a server driven choice or not. I can see the desire to > have a > > > > server-driven default, but it seems like this is often application > > > > specific. Because the functionality is trivially available via > > AdminClient > > > > (released 2 years ago), it's not quite possible to control what > > > > applications do without the use of ACLs or policies today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Producers & consumers are the majority of the clients in Kafka > ecosystem. > > > Just because AdminClient shipped a while back that doesn't mean all > users > > > adopting to it. To this day lot more users are aware of Producer & > > Consumer > > > APIs and running them in production compare to AdminClient. > > > > > > > > > > 3. Changing the create topics request in this way is highly > > unintuitive in > > > > my opinion and it relies on every client to pass the new field. For > > > > example, if librdkafka added auto create functionality by relying on > > their > > > > AdminClient, it would behave differently than what is proposed here. > > > > Forcing every client to implement this change when calling auto > create > > from > > > > the producer specifically seems odd > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure why its unintuitive , protocols change. We add or upgrade > > the > > > existing protocols all the time. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Harsha > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:51 AM Jun
回复: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Boyang, Justin, " 1. Could we include a link to KIP-464 and explain its relation to KIP-487? It's very hard to read through the proposal when readers only have a reference number to some KIP that is not briefed. " For KIP-464 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=113708722, Its motivation is to make default `num.partitions` and `default.replication.factor` available to AdminClient APIs. For KIP-487 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-487%3A+Client-side+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer, I think its motivation is to make auto-create-topic configurable from producer side. "2. The KIP suggests, " In the producer, auto-creation of a topic will occur through a specific request rather than through a side effect of requesting metadata." Could we be specific such as whether we are going to introduce a separate RPC, or just send another CreateTopicRequest?" I think there is no need to introduce a separate RPC. MetadataRequest already has field allowAutoTopicCreation. For current ProducerMetadata, it sets allowAutoTopicCreation to true as https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/448e7d7f0f46db1eae14d4fe7a1d25b7af894b09/clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/internals/ProducerMetadata.java#L59. When broker received a metadata request and the topic doesn't exist, it will decide whether to create topic according to "allowAutoTopicCreation && config.autoCreateTopicsEnable" https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/9a4f00f78bf37041006ae8b6432d194f603ac6cc/core/src/main/scala/kafka/server/KafkaApis.scala#L1107 So the way I implemented it is different from Justine's. Justine's PR: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/7075. It was implemented it by CreateTopicsRequest Jiamei's PR : https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8831. I added field " allowAutoTopicCreation" to ProducerMetadata, pass it to MetadataRequest. builder. As boyang said, " Won't it be more natural to assume that only when both server and client agree on turning on the switch, will a topic get created?" It was the same as what I thought. -邮件原件- 发件人: Boyang Chen 发送时间: 2020年6月24日 13:12 收件人: dev 主题: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer Hey Justin and Jiamei, I read the KIP and skimmed over the discussion. One thing I'm not fully convinced of is why we need to deprecate the server side auto topic creation logic, which seems orthogonal towards whether a client wants to create the topic or not. Won't it be more natural to assume that only when both server and client agree on turning on the switch, will a topic get created? Some clarifications would also be appreciated: 1. Could we include a link to KIP-464 and explain its relation to KIP-487? It's very hard to read through the proposal when readers only have a reference number to some KIP that is not briefed. 2. The KIP suggests, " In the producer, auto-creation of a topic will occur through a specific request rather than through a side effect of requesting metadata." Could we be specific such as whether we are going to introduce a separate RPC, or just send another CreateTopicRequest? Boyang On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:51 AM jiamei xie wrote: > Hi all > For > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-487%3A+Client-side+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer > , It has not been updated for a long time. And I made some update, which > has been pushed to https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8831 > > MetadataRequest has method Builder(List topics, boolean > allowAutoTopicCreation) by which we can set whether to enable > allowAutoTopicCreation from producer. > By default, allowAutoTopicCreation on Producer is true. And only if when > the allowAutoTopicCreation of Broker and Producer are true, the topic can > be auto-created. > > Besides, the test cases are changed: > There are 4 cases for brokerAutoTopicCreationEnable and > producerAutoCreateTopicsPolicy, Check if the topic is created under these > four cases. > If brokerAutoTopicCreationEnable and producerAutoCreateTopicsPolicy > are true: assertTrue(topicCreated) > else : intercept[ExecutionException] > > Looking forward to your feedback and comments. Thanks. > > Best wishes > Jiamei Xie > > On 2019/08/12 15:50:22, Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 11:12 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > A few points: > > > > > > 1. I think the way backwards compatibility is being used here is not > > > correct. Any functionality that is only enabled if set via a config is > > > backwards compatible. People may disagree with the functionality or the > > > config, but it's not a backwards compatibility issue. > > > > > > > We are tal
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hey Justin and Jiamei, I read the KIP and skimmed over the discussion. One thing I'm not fully convinced of is why we need to deprecate the server side auto topic creation logic, which seems orthogonal towards whether a client wants to create the topic or not. Won't it be more natural to assume that only when both server and client agree on turning on the switch, will a topic get created? Some clarifications would also be appreciated: 1. Could we include a link to KIP-464 and explain its relation to KIP-487? It's very hard to read through the proposal when readers only have a reference number to some KIP that is not briefed. 2. The KIP suggests, " In the producer, auto-creation of a topic will occur through a specific request rather than through a side effect of requesting metadata." Could we be specific such as whether we are going to introduce a separate RPC, or just send another CreateTopicRequest? Boyang On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:51 AM jiamei xie wrote: > Hi all > For > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-487%3A+Client-side+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer > , It has not been updated for a long time. And I made some update, which > has been pushed to https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8831 > > MetadataRequest has method Builder(List topics, boolean > allowAutoTopicCreation) by which we can set whether to enable > allowAutoTopicCreation from producer. > By default, allowAutoTopicCreation on Producer is true. And only if when > the allowAutoTopicCreation of Broker and Producer are true, the topic can > be auto-created. > > Besides, the test cases are changed: > There are 4 cases for brokerAutoTopicCreationEnable and > producerAutoCreateTopicsPolicy, Check if the topic is created under these > four cases. > If brokerAutoTopicCreationEnable and producerAutoCreateTopicsPolicy > are true: assertTrue(topicCreated) > else : intercept[ExecutionException] > > Looking forward to your feedback and comments. Thanks. > > Best wishes > Jiamei Xie > > On 2019/08/12 15:50:22, Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 11:12 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > A few points: > > > > > > 1. I think the way backwards compatibility is being used here is not > > > correct. Any functionality that is only enabled if set via a config is > > > backwards compatible. People may disagree with the functionality or the > > > config, but it's not a backwards compatibility issue. > > > > > > > We are talking about both broker and producer as a single entity and run > > by the same team/users. Allowing newer producer to create topics on a > older > > broker when auto.create.topics.enable set to false, breaks server side > > contract that this config offered from the beginning. IMO, it clearly > > isn't backward compatible. User who set auto.create.topic.enable on > broker > > will not be the same who will turn it on producer side . > > > > > > > 2. It's an interesting question if auto topic creation via the producer > > > should be a server driven choice or not. I can see the desire to have a > > > server-driven default, but it seems like this is often application > > > specific. Because the functionality is trivially available via > AdminClient > > > (released 2 years ago), it's not quite possible to control what > > > applications do without the use of ACLs or policies today. > > > > > > > > > > > Producers & consumers are the majority of the clients in Kafka ecosystem. > > Just because AdminClient shipped a while back that doesn't mean all users > > adopting to it. To this day lot more users are aware of Producer & > Consumer > > APIs and running them in production compare to AdminClient. > > > > > > > 3. Changing the create topics request in this way is highly > unintuitive in > > > my opinion and it relies on every client to pass the new field. For > > > example, if librdkafka added auto create functionality by relying on > their > > > AdminClient, it would behave differently than what is proposed here. > > > Forcing every client to implement this change when calling auto create > from > > > the producer specifically seems odd > > > > > > > I am not sure why its unintuitive , protocols change. We add or upgrade > the > > existing protocols all the time. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Harsha > > > > . > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:51 AM Jun Rao wrote: > > > > > > Hi, Justine, > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. Overall, it seems to be a good improvement. > > > > > > However, I think Harsha's point seems reasonable. We had > > > auto.create.topics.enable config on the broker to allow admins to > disable > > > topic creation from the producer/consumer clients before we had the > > > security feature. The need for that config is reduced with the security > > > feature, but may still be present since not all places have security > > > enabled. It's true that a non-secured environment is vulnerable to some > > > additional attacks, but
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi all For https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-487%3A+Client-side+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer , It has not been updated for a long time. And I made some update, which has been pushed to https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8831 MetadataRequest has method Builder(List topics, boolean allowAutoTopicCreation) by which we can set whether to enable allowAutoTopicCreation from producer. By default, allowAutoTopicCreation on Producer is true. And only if when the allowAutoTopicCreation of Broker and Producer are true, the topic can be auto-created. Besides, the test cases are changed: There are 4 cases for brokerAutoTopicCreationEnable and producerAutoCreateTopicsPolicy, Check if the topic is created under these four cases. If brokerAutoTopicCreationEnable and producerAutoCreateTopicsPolicy are true: assertTrue(topicCreated) else : intercept[ExecutionException] Looking forward to your feedback and comments. Thanks. Best wishes Jiamei Xie On 2019/08/12 15:50:22, Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 11:12 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > A few points: > > > > 1. I think the way backwards compatibility is being used here is not > > correct. Any functionality that is only enabled if set via a config is > > backwards compatible. People may disagree with the functionality or the > > config, but it's not a backwards compatibility issue. > > > > We are talking about both broker and producer as a single entity and run > by the same team/users. Allowing newer producer to create topics on a older > broker when auto.create.topics.enable set to false, breaks server side > contract that this config offered from the beginning. IMO, it clearly > isn't backward compatible. User who set auto.create.topic.enable on broker > will not be the same who will turn it on producer side . > > > > 2. It's an interesting question if auto topic creation via the producer > > should be a server driven choice or not. I can see the desire to have a > > server-driven default, but it seems like this is often application > > specific. Because the functionality is trivially available via AdminClient > > (released 2 years ago), it's not quite possible to control what > > applications do without the use of ACLs or policies today. > > > > > > > Producers & consumers are the majority of the clients in Kafka ecosystem. > Just because AdminClient shipped a while back that doesn't mean all users > adopting to it. To this day lot more users are aware of Producer & Consumer > APIs and running them in production compare to AdminClient. > > > > 3. Changing the create topics request in this way is highly unintuitive in > > my opinion and it relies on every client to pass the new field. For > > example, if librdkafka added auto create functionality by relying on their > > AdminClient, it would behave differently than what is proposed here. > > Forcing every client to implement this change when calling auto create from > > the producer specifically seems odd > > > > I am not sure why its unintuitive , protocols change. We add or upgrade the > existing protocols all the time. > > > Thanks, > Harsha > > . > > > > Ismael > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:51 AM Jun Rao wrote: > > > > Hi, Justine, > > > > Thanks for the KIP. Overall, it seems to be a good improvement. > > > > However, I think Harsha's point seems reasonable. We had > > auto.create.topics.enable config on the broker to allow admins to disable > > topic creation from the producer/consumer clients before we had the > > security feature. The need for that config is reduced with the security > > feature, but may still be present since not all places have security > > enabled. It's true that a non-secured environment is vulnerable to some > > additional attacks, but producer/consumer are the most common way for a > > user to interact with the broker. So, keeping that config for backward > > compatibility could still be useful if it's not introducing too much effort > > or extra confusion. > > > > > > Here is a one potential alternative way that I was thinking. We add a new > > field in the CreateTopicRequest to indicate whether it's from the producer > > or not. If auto.create.topics.enable is false, CreateTopicRequest from the > > producer will be rejected. We probably don't need to introduce the new > > config (which seems a bit hard to explain) in the producer. Instead, the > > new producer always uses MetadataRequest with AllowAutoTopicCreation set to > > false to get the metadata and if the metadata is not present, send the new > > CreateTopicRequest > > (assuming the broker supports it) to try to create the topic > > automatically. Whether the creation is allowed or not will be determined by > > the broker. This will make the behavior backward compatible and we can > > still achieve the main goal of the KIP, which is not relying on > > MetadataRequest for topic creation. What do you think? > > > > > >
[DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi folks For https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-487%3A+Client-side+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer , It has not been updated for a long time. And I made some update, which has been pushed to https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8831 MetadataRequest has method Builder(List topics, boolean allowAutoTopicCreation) by which we can set whether to enable allowAutoTopicCreation from producer. By default, allowAutoTopicCreation on Producer is true. And only if when the allowAutoTopicCreation of Broker and Producer are true, the topic can be auto-created. Besides, the test cases are changed: There are 4 cases for brokerAutoTopicCreationEnable and producerAutoCreateTopicsPolicy, Check if the topic is created under these four cases. If brokerAutoTopicCreationEnable and producerAutoCreateTopicsPolicy are true: assertTrue(topicCreated) else : intercept[ExecutionException] Looking forward to your feedback and comments. Thanks. Best wishes Jiamei Xie IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 11:12 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > Hi all, > > A few points: > > 1. I think the way backwards compatibility is being used here is not > correct. Any functionality that is only enabled if set via a config is > backwards compatible. People may disagree with the functionality or the > config, but it's not a backwards compatibility issue. > We are talking about both broker and producer as a single entity and run by the same team/users. Allowing newer producer to create topics on a older broker when auto.create.topics.enable set to false, breaks server side contract that this config offered from the beginning. IMO, it clearly isn't backward compatible. User who set auto.create.topic.enable on broker will not be the same who will turn it on producer side . > 2. It's an interesting question if auto topic creation via the producer > should be a server driven choice or not. I can see the desire to have a > server-driven default, but it seems like this is often application > specific. Because the functionality is trivially available via AdminClient > (released 2 years ago), it's not quite possible to control what > applications do without the use of ACLs or policies today. > > > Producers & consumers are the majority of the clients in Kafka ecosystem. Just because AdminClient shipped a while back that doesn't mean all users adopting to it. To this day lot more users are aware of Producer & Consumer APIs and running them in production compare to AdminClient. > 3. Changing the create topics request in this way is highly unintuitive in > my opinion and it relies on every client to pass the new field. For > example, if librdkafka added auto create functionality by relying on their > AdminClient, it would behave differently than what is proposed here. > Forcing every client to implement this change when calling auto create from > the producer specifically seems odd > I am not sure why its unintuitive , protocols change. We add or upgrade the existing protocols all the time. Thanks, Harsha . > > Ismael > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:51 AM Jun Rao wrote: > > Hi, Justine, > > Thanks for the KIP. Overall, it seems to be a good improvement. > > However, I think Harsha's point seems reasonable. We had > auto.create.topics.enable config on the broker to allow admins to disable > topic creation from the producer/consumer clients before we had the > security feature. The need for that config is reduced with the security > feature, but may still be present since not all places have security > enabled. It's true that a non-secured environment is vulnerable to some > additional attacks, but producer/consumer are the most common way for a > user to interact with the broker. So, keeping that config for backward > compatibility could still be useful if it's not introducing too much effort > or extra confusion. > > > Here is a one potential alternative way that I was thinking. We add a new > field in the CreateTopicRequest to indicate whether it's from the producer > or not. If auto.create.topics.enable is false, CreateTopicRequest from the > producer will be rejected. We probably don't need to introduce the new > config (which seems a bit hard to explain) in the producer. Instead, the > new producer always uses MetadataRequest with AllowAutoTopicCreation set to > false to get the metadata and if the metadata is not present, send the new > CreateTopicRequest > (assuming the broker supports it) to try to create the topic > automatically. Whether the creation is allowed or not will be determined by > the broker. This will make the behavior backward compatible and we can > still achieve the main goal of the KIP, which is not relying on > MetadataRequest for topic creation. What do you think? > > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 1:34 AM M. Manna wrote: > > Hi, > > > If I may, perhaps you could simplify everything by using only > 'auto.create.topics.enable' as a value along with true. In other words, > > > the > > public interfaces section should only have > > [true,auto.create.topics.enable, > > false]. > > The reason for this is that auto.create.topics.enable is already known to > users as a "Server-SIde" config. So all you are saying is > > a) To avoid day 1 impact, it will follow whatever > > auto.create.topics.enable > > > value is set. > b) False means - no client side topic creation > c) True means client side topic creation. > > > It saves creating 2 more new strings :). But not too expensive anyway. > > Also, when you deprecate auto.create.topics.enable - you must provide > sufficient logic to ensure that things like rolling upgrade doesn't > temporarily break anything. I apologise if you have already accounted for > this, but wanted to mention since I didn't notice this on the KIP. > > Let me know how this sounds. > > Regards, > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 19:10, Justine Olshan > > wrote: > > Hi Harsha, > > I think my message may have gotten lost in all the others. > > Two of the goals
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi all, A few points: 1. I think the way backwards compatibility is being used here is not correct. Any functionality that is only enabled if set via a config is backwards compatible. People may disagree with the functionality or the config, but it's not a backwards compatibility issue. 2. It's an interesting question if auto topic creation via the producer should be a server driven choice or not. I can see the desire to have a server-driven default, but it seems like this is often application specific. Because the functionality is trivially available via AdminClient (released 2 years ago), it's not quite possible to control what applications do without the use of ACLs or policies today. 3. Changing the create topics request in this way is highly unintuitive in my opinion and it relies on every client to pass the new field. For example, if librdkafka added auto create functionality by relying on their AdminClient, it would behave differently than what is proposed here. Forcing every client to implement this change when calling auto create from the producer specifically seems odd. Ismael On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:51 AM Jun Rao wrote: > Hi, Justine, > > Thanks for the KIP. Overall, it seems to be a good improvement. > > However, I think Harsha's point seems reasonable. We had > auto.create.topics.enable config on the broker to allow admins to disable > topic creation from the producer/consumer clients before we had the > security feature. The need for that config is reduced with the security > feature, but may still be present since not all places have security > enabled. It's true that a non-secured environment is vulnerable to some > additional attacks, but producer/consumer are the most common way for a > user to interact with the broker. So, keeping that config for backward > compatibility could still be useful if it's not introducing too much effort > or extra confusion. > > Here is a one potential alternative way that I was thinking. We add a new > field in the CreateTopicRequest to indicate whether it's from the producer > or not. If auto.create.topics.enable is false, CreateTopicRequest from the > producer will be rejected. We probably don't need to introduce the new > config (which seems a bit hard to explain) in the producer. Instead, the > new producer always uses MetadataRequest with AllowAutoTopicCreation set to > false to get the metadata and if the metadata is not present, send the > new CreateTopicRequest > (assuming the broker supports it) to try to create the topic automatically. > Whether the creation is allowed or not will be determined by the broker. > This will make the behavior backward compatible and we can still achieve > the main goal of the KIP, which is not relying on MetadataRequest for topic > creation. What do you think? > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 1:34 AM M. Manna wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > If I may, perhaps you could simplify everything by using only > > 'auto.create.topics.enable' as a value along with true. In other words, > the > > public interfaces section should only have > [true,auto.create.topics.enable, > > false]. > > > > The reason for this is that auto.create.topics.enable is already known to > > users as a "Server-SIde" config. So all you are saying is > > > > a) To avoid day 1 impact, it will follow whatever > auto.create.topics.enable > > value is set. > > b) False means - no client side topic creation > > c) True means client side topic creation. > > > > It saves creating 2 more new strings :). But not too expensive anyway. > > > > Also, when you deprecate auto.create.topics.enable - you must provide > > sufficient logic to ensure that things like rolling upgrade doesn't > > temporarily break anything. I apologise if you have already accounted for > > this, but wanted to mention since I didn't notice this on the KIP. > > > > Let me know how this sounds. > > > > Regards, > > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 19:10, Justine Olshan > wrote: > > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > > > I think my message may have gotten lost in all the others. > > > > > > Two of the goals of this KIP are to 1) allow auto-creation on specific > > > clients when the broker default is false and 2) eventually replace the > > > broker config. > > > > > > In order to accomplish these two goals, we need the producer to be able > > to > > > create topics despite the broker config. (How can we replace a function > > > when we rely on it?) > > > I think at this point we have a fundamental disagreement in what we > > should > > > allow the producer to do. > > > In my previous message I mentioned a config that would allow for the > > broker > > > to prevent producer auto-creation. (It would be disabled by default.) > It > > > would fix your issue for now, but could lead to more complications > later. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Justine > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:56 AM Harsha Chintalapani > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 9:50 AM, Colin McCabe > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 11:51, Jun Rao wrote: > Hi, Justine, > > Thanks for the KIP. Overall, it seems to be a good improvement. > > However, I think Harsha's point seems reasonable. We had > auto.create.topics.enable config on the broker to allow admins to disable > topic creation from the producer/consumer clients before we had the > security feature. The need for that config is reduced with the security > feature, but may still be present since not all places have security > enabled. It's true that a non-secured environment is vulnerable to some > additional attacks, but producer/consumer are the most common way for a > user to interact with the broker. So, keeping that config for backward > compatibility could still be useful if it's not introducing too much effort > or extra confusion. > > Here is a one potential alternative way that I was thinking. We add a new > field in the CreateTopicRequest to indicate whether it's from the producer > or not. If auto.create.topics.enable is false, CreateTopicRequest from the > producer will be rejected. Hi Jun, Thanks for taking a look. One major goal of this KIP is to allow sysadmins to disable server-side topic auto-creation through the metadata request, while still enabling client-side auto-creation for producers. So perhaps we could have three values for "auto.create.topics.enable" on the broker: true, false, and client-side. "client-side" would indicate that auto topic creation through the metadata request would be blocked, but through create topics request would be enabled. > We probably don't need to introduce the new > config (which seems a bit hard to explain) in the producer. Instead, the > new producer always uses MetadataRequest with AllowAutoTopicCreation set to > false to get the metadata and if the metadata is not present, send the > new CreateTopicRequest > (assuming the broker supports it) to try to create the topic automatically. > Whether the creation is allowed or not will be determined by the broker. > This will make the behavior backward compatible and we can still achieve > the main goal of the KIP, which is not relying on MetadataRequest for topic > creation. What do you think? I agree that it may not be necessary to introduce a new configuration for the producer, if we add the server-side access control you suggested. However, new clients will still need to support auto-creation on older brokers, so that producers that rely on it keep working across a client upgrade. That means attempting to do it through MetadataRequest, if the new mechanism is not supported. >From a compatibility point of view, if we rely on a new field in >CreateTopicsRequest, we definitely won't be able to use the >CreateTopicsRequest mechanism against any broker but a 2.4+ one. That's >probably fine (and consistent with some of the other discussion we've been >having here) but it worth noting. best, Colin > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 1:34 AM M. Manna wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > If I may, perhaps you could simplify everything by using only > > 'auto.create.topics.enable' as a value along with true. In other words, the > > public interfaces section should only have [true,auto.create.topics.enable, > > false]. > > > > The reason for this is that auto.create.topics.enable is already known to > > users as a "Server-SIde" config. So all you are saying is > > > > a) To avoid day 1 impact, it will follow whatever auto.create.topics.enable > > value is set. > > b) False means - no client side topic creation > > c) True means client side topic creation. > > > > It saves creating 2 more new strings :). But not too expensive anyway. > > > > Also, when you deprecate auto.create.topics.enable - you must provide > > sufficient logic to ensure that things like rolling upgrade doesn't > > temporarily break anything. I apologise if you have already accounted for > > this, but wanted to mention since I didn't notice this on the KIP. > > > > Let me know how this sounds. > > > > Regards, > > > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 19:10, Justine Olshan wrote: > > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > > > I think my message may have gotten lost in all the others. > > > > > > Two of the goals of this KIP are to 1) allow auto-creation on specific > > > clients when the broker default is false and 2) eventually replace the > > > broker config. > > > > > > In order to accomplish these two goals, we need the producer to be able > > to > > > create topics despite the broker config. (How can we replace a function > > > when we rely on it?) > > > I think at this point we have a fundamental disagreement in what we > > should > > > allow the producer to do. > > > In my previous message I mentioned a config that would allow for the > > broker > > > to prevent producer auto-creation. (It would be disabled by default.) It > > > would fix your issue for now, but could lead to more complications later. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Justine > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi, Justine, Thanks for the KIP. Overall, it seems to be a good improvement. However, I think Harsha's point seems reasonable. We had auto.create.topics.enable config on the broker to allow admins to disable topic creation from the producer/consumer clients before we had the security feature. The need for that config is reduced with the security feature, but may still be present since not all places have security enabled. It's true that a non-secured environment is vulnerable to some additional attacks, but producer/consumer are the most common way for a user to interact with the broker. So, keeping that config for backward compatibility could still be useful if it's not introducing too much effort or extra confusion. Here is a one potential alternative way that I was thinking. We add a new field in the CreateTopicRequest to indicate whether it's from the producer or not. If auto.create.topics.enable is false, CreateTopicRequest from the producer will be rejected. We probably don't need to introduce the new config (which seems a bit hard to explain) in the producer. Instead, the new producer always uses MetadataRequest with AllowAutoTopicCreation set to false to get the metadata and if the metadata is not present, send the new CreateTopicRequest (assuming the broker supports it) to try to create the topic automatically. Whether the creation is allowed or not will be determined by the broker. This will make the behavior backward compatible and we can still achieve the main goal of the KIP, which is not relying on MetadataRequest for topic creation. What do you think? Thanks, Jun On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 1:34 AM M. Manna wrote: > Hi, > > If I may, perhaps you could simplify everything by using only > 'auto.create.topics.enable' as a value along with true. In other words, the > public interfaces section should only have [true,auto.create.topics.enable, > false]. > > The reason for this is that auto.create.topics.enable is already known to > users as a "Server-SIde" config. So all you are saying is > > a) To avoid day 1 impact, it will follow whatever auto.create.topics.enable > value is set. > b) False means - no client side topic creation > c) True means client side topic creation. > > It saves creating 2 more new strings :). But not too expensive anyway. > > Also, when you deprecate auto.create.topics.enable - you must provide > sufficient logic to ensure that things like rolling upgrade doesn't > temporarily break anything. I apologise if you have already accounted for > this, but wanted to mention since I didn't notice this on the KIP. > > Let me know how this sounds. > > Regards, > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 19:10, Justine Olshan wrote: > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > I think my message may have gotten lost in all the others. > > > > Two of the goals of this KIP are to 1) allow auto-creation on specific > > clients when the broker default is false and 2) eventually replace the > > broker config. > > > > In order to accomplish these two goals, we need the producer to be able > to > > create topics despite the broker config. (How can we replace a function > > when we rely on it?) > > I think at this point we have a fundamental disagreement in what we > should > > allow the producer to do. > > In my previous message I mentioned a config that would allow for the > broker > > to prevent producer auto-creation. (It would be disabled by default.) It > > would fix your issue for now, but could lead to more complications later. > > > > Thank you, > > Justine > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:56 AM Harsha Chintalapani > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 9:50 AM, Colin McCabe > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, at 09:24, Harsha Ch wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:46 PM, Colin McCabe < cmcc...@apache.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 21:38, Harsha Ch wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Colin, > > > > "Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Users don't have to build their own > > > > tooling, right? They can use any of the shell scripts that we've > > shipped > > > in > > > > the last few releases. For example, if any of your users run it, this > > > shell > > > > script will delete all of the topics from your non-security-enabled > > > > cluster: > > > > > > > > ./ bin/ kafka-topics. sh ( http://bin/kafka-topics.sh ) > > > > --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --list 2>/dev/null > > > > | xargs -l ./ bin/ kafka-topics. sh ( http://bin/kafka-topics.sh ) > > > > --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --delete > > > > --topic > > > > > > > > They will need to fill in the correct bootstrap servers list, of > > course, > > > > not localhost. This deletion script will work on some pretty old > > brokers, > > > > even back to the 0.10 releases. It seems a little odd to trust your > > users > > > > with this power, but not trust them to avoid changing a particular > > > > configuration key." > > > > > > > > The above will blocked by the server if we set delete.topic.enable to > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi, If I may, perhaps you could simplify everything by using only 'auto.create.topics.enable' as a value along with true. In other words, the public interfaces section should only have [true,auto.create.topics.enable, false]. The reason for this is that auto.create.topics.enable is already known to users as a "Server-SIde" config. So all you are saying is a) To avoid day 1 impact, it will follow whatever auto.create.topics.enable value is set. b) False means - no client side topic creation c) True means client side topic creation. It saves creating 2 more new strings :). But not too expensive anyway. Also, when you deprecate auto.create.topics.enable - you must provide sufficient logic to ensure that things like rolling upgrade doesn't temporarily break anything. I apologise if you have already accounted for this, but wanted to mention since I didn't notice this on the KIP. Let me know how this sounds. Regards, On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 19:10, Justine Olshan wrote: > Hi Harsha, > > I think my message may have gotten lost in all the others. > > Two of the goals of this KIP are to 1) allow auto-creation on specific > clients when the broker default is false and 2) eventually replace the > broker config. > > In order to accomplish these two goals, we need the producer to be able to > create topics despite the broker config. (How can we replace a function > when we rely on it?) > I think at this point we have a fundamental disagreement in what we should > allow the producer to do. > In my previous message I mentioned a config that would allow for the broker > to prevent producer auto-creation. (It would be disabled by default.) It > would fix your issue for now, but could lead to more complications later. > > Thank you, > Justine > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:56 AM Harsha Chintalapani > wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 9:50 AM, Colin McCabe wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, at 09:24, Harsha Ch wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:46 PM, Colin McCabe < cmcc...@apache.org > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 21:38, Harsha Ch wrote: > > > > > > Hi Colin, > > > "Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Users don't have to build their own > > > tooling, right? They can use any of the shell scripts that we've > shipped > > in > > > the last few releases. For example, if any of your users run it, this > > shell > > > script will delete all of the topics from your non-security-enabled > > > cluster: > > > > > > ./ bin/ kafka-topics. sh ( http://bin/kafka-topics.sh ) > > > --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --list 2>/dev/null > > > | xargs -l ./ bin/ kafka-topics. sh ( http://bin/kafka-topics.sh ) > > > --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --delete > > > --topic > > > > > > They will need to fill in the correct bootstrap servers list, of > course, > > > not localhost. This deletion script will work on some pretty old > brokers, > > > even back to the 0.10 releases. It seems a little odd to trust your > users > > > with this power, but not trust them to avoid changing a particular > > > configuration key." > > > > > > The above will blocked by the server if we set delete.topic.enable to > > > false and thats exactly what I am asking for. > > > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > > > I was wondering if someone was going to bring up that configuration :) > > > > > > it's an interesting complication, but globally disabling topic deletion > > is > > > not very practical for most use-cases. > > > > > > In any case, there are plenty of other bad things that users with full > > > permissions can do that aren't blocked by any server configuration. For > > > example, they can delete every record in every topic. I can write a > > script > > > for that too, and there's no server configuration you can set to > disable > > > it. Or I could simply create hundreds of thousands of topics, until > > cluster > > > performance becomes unacceptable (this will be even more of a problem > if > > > someone configured delete.topic.enable as false). Or publish bad data > to > > > every topic, etc. etc. > > > > > > The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't rely on these kind > of > > > server-side configurations for security. At most, they're a way to set > up > > > certain very simple policies. But the policies are so simple that > they're > > > hardly ever useful any more. > > > > > > For example, if the problem you want to solve is that you want a user > to > > > only be able to create 50 topics and not delete anyone else's topics, > you > > > can solve that with a CreateTopicsPolicy that limits the number of > > topics, > > > and some ACLs. There's no combination of auto.create.topics.enable and > > > delete.topic.enable that will help here. > > > > > > Hi Colin, > > > > > > Well you gave the example that a user can delete the topics > > > just by running that script :). > > > > > > I understand there are open APIs in Kafka and can lead to rogue clients > > > taking advantage of it without proper
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Harsha, I think my message may have gotten lost in all the others. Two of the goals of this KIP are to 1) allow auto-creation on specific clients when the broker default is false and 2) eventually replace the broker config. In order to accomplish these two goals, we need the producer to be able to create topics despite the broker config. (How can we replace a function when we rely on it?) I think at this point we have a fundamental disagreement in what we should allow the producer to do. In my previous message I mentioned a config that would allow for the broker to prevent producer auto-creation. (It would be disabled by default.) It would fix your issue for now, but could lead to more complications later. Thank you, Justine On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:56 AM Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 9:50 AM, Colin McCabe wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, at 09:24, Harsha Ch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:46 PM, Colin McCabe < cmcc...@apache.org > > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 21:38, Harsha Ch wrote: > > > > Hi Colin, > > "Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Users don't have to build their own > > tooling, right? They can use any of the shell scripts that we've shipped > in > > the last few releases. For example, if any of your users run it, this > shell > > script will delete all of the topics from your non-security-enabled > > cluster: > > > > ./ bin/ kafka-topics. sh ( http://bin/kafka-topics.sh ) > > --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --list 2>/dev/null > > | xargs -l ./ bin/ kafka-topics. sh ( http://bin/kafka-topics.sh ) > > --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --delete > > --topic > > > > They will need to fill in the correct bootstrap servers list, of course, > > not localhost. This deletion script will work on some pretty old brokers, > > even back to the 0.10 releases. It seems a little odd to trust your users > > with this power, but not trust them to avoid changing a particular > > configuration key." > > > > The above will blocked by the server if we set delete.topic.enable to > > false and thats exactly what I am asking for. > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > I was wondering if someone was going to bring up that configuration :) > > > > it's an interesting complication, but globally disabling topic deletion > is > > not very practical for most use-cases. > > > > In any case, there are plenty of other bad things that users with full > > permissions can do that aren't blocked by any server configuration. For > > example, they can delete every record in every topic. I can write a > script > > for that too, and there's no server configuration you can set to disable > > it. Or I could simply create hundreds of thousands of topics, until > cluster > > performance becomes unacceptable (this will be even more of a problem if > > someone configured delete.topic.enable as false). Or publish bad data to > > every topic, etc. etc. > > > > The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't rely on these kind of > > server-side configurations for security. At most, they're a way to set up > > certain very simple policies. But the policies are so simple that they're > > hardly ever useful any more. > > > > For example, if the problem you want to solve is that you want a user to > > only be able to create 50 topics and not delete anyone else's topics, you > > can solve that with a CreateTopicsPolicy that limits the number of > topics, > > and some ACLs. There's no combination of auto.create.topics.enable and > > delete.topic.enable that will help here. > > > > Hi Colin, > > > > Well you gave the example that a user can delete the topics > > just by running that script :). > > > > I understand there are open APIs in Kafka and can lead to rogue clients > > taking advantage of it without proper security in place. > > > > What I am asking so far in this thread is , this KIP is changing the > > producer behavior and its not backward compatible. > > > > The change is backwards compatible. The default will still be server-side > > topic auto-creation, just like now. > > > You will have to specifically change the producer config to get the new > > behavior. > > > > > I disagree. Today server can turn off the topic creation neither producer > or consumer can create a topic. With this KIP , producer can create a topic > by turning on client side config when server side config is turned off. > > > We can still achieve > > the main goal of the KIP which is to change MetadataRequest creating > > topics and send a CreateTopicRequest from Producer and also keep the > server > > side config to have precedence. This KIP originally written to have > server > > side preference and there is not much explanation why it changed to have > > Producer side preference. > > > > Arguing that AdminClient can do that and so we are going to make Producer > > do the same doesn't make sense. > > > > "The downside is that if we wanted to check a server side configuration > > before sending the
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 9:50 AM, Colin McCabe wrote: > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, at 09:24, Harsha Ch wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:46 PM, Colin McCabe < cmcc...@apache.org > > wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 21:38, Harsha Ch wrote: > > Hi Colin, > "Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Users don't have to build their own > tooling, right? They can use any of the shell scripts that we've shipped in > the last few releases. For example, if any of your users run it, this shell > script will delete all of the topics from your non-security-enabled > cluster: > > ./ bin/ kafka-topics. sh ( http://bin/kafka-topics.sh ) > --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --list 2>/dev/null > | xargs -l ./ bin/ kafka-topics. sh ( http://bin/kafka-topics.sh ) > --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --delete > --topic > > They will need to fill in the correct bootstrap servers list, of course, > not localhost. This deletion script will work on some pretty old brokers, > even back to the 0.10 releases. It seems a little odd to trust your users > with this power, but not trust them to avoid changing a particular > configuration key." > > The above will blocked by the server if we set delete.topic.enable to > false and thats exactly what I am asking for. > > Hi Harsha, > > I was wondering if someone was going to bring up that configuration :) > > it's an interesting complication, but globally disabling topic deletion is > not very practical for most use-cases. > > In any case, there are plenty of other bad things that users with full > permissions can do that aren't blocked by any server configuration. For > example, they can delete every record in every topic. I can write a script > for that too, and there's no server configuration you can set to disable > it. Or I could simply create hundreds of thousands of topics, until cluster > performance becomes unacceptable (this will be even more of a problem if > someone configured delete.topic.enable as false). Or publish bad data to > every topic, etc. etc. > > The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't rely on these kind of > server-side configurations for security. At most, they're a way to set up > certain very simple policies. But the policies are so simple that they're > hardly ever useful any more. > > For example, if the problem you want to solve is that you want a user to > only be able to create 50 topics and not delete anyone else's topics, you > can solve that with a CreateTopicsPolicy that limits the number of topics, > and some ACLs. There's no combination of auto.create.topics.enable and > delete.topic.enable that will help here. > > Hi Colin, > > Well you gave the example that a user can delete the topics > just by running that script :). > > I understand there are open APIs in Kafka and can lead to rogue clients > taking advantage of it without proper security in place. > > What I am asking so far in this thread is , this KIP is changing the > producer behavior and its not backward compatible. > > The change is backwards compatible. The default will still be server-side > topic auto-creation, just like now. > You will have to specifically change the producer config to get the new > behavior. > I disagree. Today server can turn off the topic creation neither producer or consumer can create a topic. With this KIP , producer can create a topic by turning on client side config when server side config is turned off. We can still achieve > the main goal of the KIP which is to change MetadataRequest creating > topics and send a CreateTopicRequest from Producer and also keep the server > side config to have precedence. This KIP originally written to have server > side preference and there is not much explanation why it changed to have > Producer side preference. > > Arguing that AdminClient can do that and so we are going to make Producer > do the same doesn't make sense. > > "The downside is that if we wanted to check a server side configuration > before sending the create topics request, the code would be more complex. > The behavior would also not be consistent with how topic auto-creation is > handled in Kafka Streams." > > I am not sure why you need to check server side configuration before > sending create topics request. A user enables producer side config to > create topics. > Producer sends a request to the broker and if the broker has > auto.topic.create.enable to true (default) it will allow creation of > topics. If it set to false it returns error back to the client. > > auto.topic.create.enable has never affected CreateTopicsRequest. If you > submit a CreateTopicsRequest and you are authorized, a topic will be > created, regardless of what the value of auto.topic.create.enable is. This > behavior goes back a long way, to about 2016 (Kafka 0.10.1, I think?) > > I don't see how this behavior will be different in Kafka streams. By > default server allows the topic creation and with this KIP, It will only > allow creation of topic when both
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, at 09:24, Harsha Ch wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:46 PM, Colin McCabe < cmcc...@apache.org > wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 21:38, Harsha Ch wrote: > >> > >> Hi Colin, > >> "Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Users don't have to build their own > >> tooling, right? They can use any of the shell scripts that we've shipped > >> in the last few releases. For example, if any of your users run it, this > >> shell script will delete all of the topics from your non-security-enabled > >> cluster: > >> > >> > >> > >> ./ bin/ kafka-topics. sh ( http://bin/kafka-topics.sh ) --bootstrap-server > >> localhost:9092 --list 2>/dev/null > >> | xargs -l ./ bin/ kafka-topics. sh ( http://bin/kafka-topics.sh ) > >> --bootstrap-server > >> localhost:9092 --delete > >> --topic > >> > >> > >> > >> They will need to fill in the correct bootstrap servers list, of course, > >> not localhost. This deletion script will work on some pretty old brokers, > >> even back to the 0.10 releases. It seems a little odd to trust your users > >> with this power, but not trust them to avoid changing a particular > >> configuration key." > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The above will blocked by the server if we set delete.topic.enable to > >> false and thats exactly what I am asking for. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > > > > > > > I was wondering if someone was going to bring up that configuration :) > > > > > > > > > > it's an interesting complication, but globally disabling topic deletion is > > not very practical for most use-cases. > > > > > > > > > > In any case, there are plenty of other bad things that users with full > > permissions can do that aren't blocked by any server configuration. For > > example, they can delete every record in every topic. I can write a script > > for that too, and there's no server configuration you can set to disable > > it. Or I could simply create hundreds of thousands of topics, until > > cluster performance becomes unacceptable (this will be even more of a > > problem if someone configured delete.topic.enable as false). Or publish > > bad data to every topic, etc. etc. > > > > > > > > > > The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't rely on these kind of > > server-side configurations for security. At most, they're a way to set up > > certain very simple policies. But the policies are so simple that they're > > hardly ever useful any more. > > > > > > > > > > For example, if the problem you want to solve is that you want a user to > > only be able to create 50 topics and not delete anyone else's topics, you > > can solve that with a CreateTopicsPolicy that limits the number of topics, > > and some ACLs. There's no combination of auto.create.topics.enable and > > delete.topic.enable that will help here. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Colin, > > Well you gave the example that a user can delete the topics > just by running that script :). > > I understand there are open APIs in Kafka and can lead to rogue clients > taking advantage of it without proper security in place. > > What I am asking so far in this thread is , this KIP is changing the > producer behavior and its not backward compatible. The change is backwards compatible. The default will still be server-side topic auto-creation, just like now. You will have to specifically change the producer config to get the new behavior. > We can still achieve > the main goal of the KIP which is to change MetadataRequest creating > topics and send a CreateTopicRequest from Producer and also keep the > server side config to have precedence. This KIP originally written to > have server side preference and there is not much explanation why it > changed to have Producer side preference. > > Arguing that AdminClient can do that and so we are going to make > Producer do the same doesn't make sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> "The downside is that if we wanted to check a server side configuration > >> before sending the create topics request, the code would be more complex. > >> The behavior would also not be consistent with how topic auto-creation is > >> handled in Kafka Streams." > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I am not sure why you need to check server side configuration before > >> sending create topics request. A user enables producer side config to > >> create topics. > >> Producer sends a request to the broker and if the broker has > >> auto.topic.create.enable to true (default) it will allow creation of > >> topics. If it set to false it returns error back to the client. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > auto.topic.create.enable has never affected CreateTopicsRequest. If you > > submit a CreateTopicsRequest and you are authorized, a topic will be > > created, regardless of what the value of auto.topic.create.enable is. This > > behavior goes back a long way, to about 2016 (Kafka 0.10.1, I think?) > > > > > > > >> > >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 11:46 PM, Colin McCabe < cmcc...@apache.org > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 21:38, Harsha Ch wrote: > > > >> >> >> Hi Colin, >> "Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Users don't have to build their own >> tooling, right? They can use any of the shell scripts that we've shipped >> in the last few releases. For example, if any of your users run it, this >> shell script will delete all of the topics from your non-security-enabled >> cluster: >> >> >> >> ./ bin/ kafka-topics. sh ( http://bin/kafka-topics.sh ) --bootstrap-server >> localhost:9092 --list 2>/dev/null >> | xargs -l ./ bin/ kafka-topics. sh ( http://bin/kafka-topics.sh ) >> --bootstrap-server >> localhost:9092 --delete >> --topic >> >> >> >> They will need to fill in the correct bootstrap servers list, of course, >> not localhost. This deletion script will work on some pretty old brokers, >> even back to the 0.10 releases. It seems a little odd to trust your users >> with this power, but not trust them to avoid changing a particular >> configuration key." >> >> >> >> >> The above will blocked by the server if we set delete.topic.enable to >> false and thats exactly what I am asking for. >> >> >> > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > > I was wondering if someone was going to bring up that configuration :) > > > > > it's an interesting complication, but globally disabling topic deletion is > not very practical for most use-cases. > > > > > In any case, there are plenty of other bad things that users with full > permissions can do that aren't blocked by any server configuration. For > example, they can delete every record in every topic. I can write a script > for that too, and there's no server configuration you can set to disable > it. Or I could simply create hundreds of thousands of topics, until > cluster performance becomes unacceptable (this will be even more of a > problem if someone configured delete.topic.enable as false). Or publish > bad data to every topic, etc. etc. > > > > > The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't rely on these kind of > server-side configurations for security. At most, they're a way to set up > certain very simple policies. But the policies are so simple that they're > hardly ever useful any more. > > > > > For example, if the problem you want to solve is that you want a user to > only be able to create 50 topics and not delete anyone else's topics, you > can solve that with a CreateTopicsPolicy that limits the number of topics, > and some ACLs. There's no combination of auto.create.topics.enable and > delete.topic.enable that will help here. > > > > Hi Colin, Well you gave the example that a user can delete the topics just by running that script :). I understand there are open APIs in Kafka and can lead to rogue clients taking advantage of it without proper security in place. What I am asking so far in this thread is , this KIP is changing the producer behavior and its not backward compatible. We can still achieve the main goal of the KIP which is to change MetadataRequest creating topics and send a CreateTopicRequest from Producer and also keep the server side config to have precedence. This KIP originally written to have server side preference and there is not much explanation why it changed to have Producer side preference. Arguing that AdminClient can do that and so we are going to make Producer do the same doesn't make sense. > > > > > > > >> >> >> "The downside is that if we wanted to check a server side configuration >> before sending the create topics request, the code would be more complex. >> The behavior would also not be consistent with how topic auto-creation is >> handled in Kafka Streams." >> >> >> >> >> I am not sure why you need to check server side configuration before >> sending create topics request. A user enables producer side config to >> create topics. >> Producer sends a request to the broker and if the broker has >> auto.topic.create.enable to true (default) it will allow creation of >> topics. If it set to false it returns error back to the client. >> >> > > > > auto.topic.create.enable has never affected CreateTopicsRequest. If you > submit a CreateTopicsRequest and you are authorized, a topic will be > created, regardless of what the value of auto.topic.create.enable is. This > behavior goes back a long way, to about 2016 (Kafka 0.10.1, I think?) > > > >> >> >> I don't see how this behavior will be different in Kafka streams. By >> default server allows the topic creation and with this KIP, It will only >> allow creation of topic when both producer and server side are turned on. >> Its exactly the same behavior in KIP-361. >> >> >> > > > > I suggest running a streams job as a test. It creates the topics it needs > using AdminClient. The value of auto.topic.create.enable is not relevant. > Whether it is true or false, the topics will still be created. >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hello all, Thank you for all the feedback! It seems that one of the main issues is how the client-side auto-creation can act on its own and does not simply block or allow auto-creation as configured by the broker. I think I was a bit unclear about this, but the idea of this KIP is to eventually replace the functionality of the broker config. We don't want to check if the broker config is also enabled because the idea is that the broker config would not be enabled, and only specific producers/clients would be auto-creating topics. Some older clients require auto-topic creation for only the topics they need, and this KIP would make these clients compatible with brokers that disable autocreation. I now understand the worry about security and 'overriding' the broker's auto.create.topic.enable configuration. However, in the case I explained above, having the broker stop the producer would prevent the clients I described above from being able to create topics. (Basically not allowing the main point of creating this KIP.) I'm not sure to go about having such a security feature. Perhaps adding another config on the broker to prevent this that would be off by default but could be turned on? It would complicate things more, but I'm open to discussing. Thank you, Justine On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:47 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 21:38, Harsha Ch wrote: > > Hi Colin, > > "Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Users don't have to build their own > > tooling, right? They can use any of the shell scripts that we've shipped > > in the last few releases. For example, if any of your users run it, this > > shell script will delete all of the topics from your non-security-enabled > > cluster: > > > > ./bin/kafka-topics.sh --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --list > 2>/dev/null > > | xargs -l ./bin/kafka-topics.sh --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 > --delete > > --topic > > > > They will need to fill in the correct bootstrap servers list, of course, > > not localhost. This deletion script will work on some pretty old > brokers, > > even back to the 0.10 releases. It seems a little odd to trust your > users > > with this power, but not trust them to avoid changing a particular > > configuration key." > > > > The above will blocked by the server if we set delete.topic.enable to > false > > and thats exactly what I am asking for. > > Hi Harsha, > > I was wondering if someone was going to bring up that configuration :) > > it's an interesting complication, but globally disabling topic deletion is > not very practical for most use-cases. > > In any case, there are plenty of other bad things that users with full > permissions can do that aren't blocked by any server configuration. For > example, they can delete every record in every topic. I can write a script > for that too, and there's no server configuration you can set to disable > it. Or I could simply create hundreds of thousands of topics, until > cluster performance becomes unacceptable (this will be even more of a > problem if someone configured delete.topic.enable as false). Or publish > bad data to every topic, etc. etc. > > The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't rely on these kind of > server-side configurations for security. At most, they're a way to set up > certain very simple policies. But the policies are so simple that they're > hardly ever useful any more. > > For example, if the problem you want to solve is that you want a user to > only be able to create 50 topics and not delete anyone else's topics, you > can solve that with a CreateTopicsPolicy that limits the number of topics, > and some ACLs. There's no combination of auto.create.topics.enable and > delete.topic.enable that will help here. > > > > > "The downside is that if we wanted to check a server side configuration > > before sending the create topics request, the code would be more complex. > > The behavior would also not be consistent with how topic auto-creation is > > handled in Kafka Streams." > > > > I am not sure why you need to check server side configuration before > > sending create topics request. A user enables producer side config to > > create topics. > > Producer sends a request to the broker and if the broker has > > auto.topic.create.enable to true (default) it will allow creation of > > topics. If it set to false it returns error back to the client. > > auto.topic.create.enable has never affected CreateTopicsRequest. If you > submit a CreateTopicsRequest and you are authorized, a topic will be > created, regardless of what the value of auto.topic.create.enable is. This > behavior goes back a long way, to about 2016 (Kafka 0.10.1, I think?) > > > I don't see how this behavior will be different in Kafka streams. By > > default server allows the topic creation and with this KIP, It will only > > allow creation of topic when both producer and server side are turned on. > > Its exactly the same behavior in KIP-361. > > I suggest running a
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 21:38, Harsha Ch wrote: > Hi Colin, > "Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Users don't have to build their own > tooling, right? They can use any of the shell scripts that we've shipped > in the last few releases. For example, if any of your users run it, this > shell script will delete all of the topics from your non-security-enabled > cluster: > > ./bin/kafka-topics.sh --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --list 2>/dev/null > | xargs -l ./bin/kafka-topics.sh --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --delete > --topic > > They will need to fill in the correct bootstrap servers list, of course, > not localhost. This deletion script will work on some pretty old brokers, > even back to the 0.10 releases. It seems a little odd to trust your users > with this power, but not trust them to avoid changing a particular > configuration key." > > The above will blocked by the server if we set delete.topic.enable to false > and thats exactly what I am asking for. Hi Harsha, I was wondering if someone was going to bring up that configuration :) it's an interesting complication, but globally disabling topic deletion is not very practical for most use-cases. In any case, there are plenty of other bad things that users with full permissions can do that aren't blocked by any server configuration. For example, they can delete every record in every topic. I can write a script for that too, and there's no server configuration you can set to disable it. Or I could simply create hundreds of thousands of topics, until cluster performance becomes unacceptable (this will be even more of a problem if someone configured delete.topic.enable as false). Or publish bad data to every topic, etc. etc. The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't rely on these kind of server-side configurations for security. At most, they're a way to set up certain very simple policies. But the policies are so simple that they're hardly ever useful any more. For example, if the problem you want to solve is that you want a user to only be able to create 50 topics and not delete anyone else's topics, you can solve that with a CreateTopicsPolicy that limits the number of topics, and some ACLs. There's no combination of auto.create.topics.enable and delete.topic.enable that will help here. > > "The downside is that if we wanted to check a server side configuration > before sending the create topics request, the code would be more complex. > The behavior would also not be consistent with how topic auto-creation is > handled in Kafka Streams." > > I am not sure why you need to check server side configuration before > sending create topics request. A user enables producer side config to > create topics. > Producer sends a request to the broker and if the broker has > auto.topic.create.enable to true (default) it will allow creation of > topics. If it set to false it returns error back to the client. auto.topic.create.enable has never affected CreateTopicsRequest. If you submit a CreateTopicsRequest and you are authorized, a topic will be created, regardless of what the value of auto.topic.create.enable is. This behavior goes back a long way, to about 2016 (Kafka 0.10.1, I think?) > I don't see how this behavior will be different in Kafka streams. By > default server allows the topic creation and with this KIP, It will only > allow creation of topic when both producer and server side are turned on. > Its exactly the same behavior in KIP-361. I suggest running a streams job as a test. It creates the topics it needs using AdminClient. The value of auto.topic.create.enable is not relevant. Whether it is true or false, the topics will still be created. > > "In general, it would be nice if we could keep the security and access > control model simple and not introduce a lot of special cases and > exceptions. Kafka has basically converged on using ACLs and > CreateTopicPolicy classes to control who can create topics and where. > Adding more knobs seems like a step backwards, especially when the > proposed knobs don't work consistently across components, and don't provide > true > security." This is not about access control at all. Shipping sane defaults > should > be prioritized. I don't think the default is really the question here. I think everyone agrees that the default for client-side auto-topic creation should be off. The scenarios that you're describing (such as dealing with a poorly configured client that tries to create topics it should not) do seem to be about access control. > We keep talking about CreateTopicPolicy and yet we don't have default > one and asking every user of Kafka implement their own doesn't make sense > here. The point of CreateTopicPolicy is exactly that you can implement your own, though. It's a way of customizing what the policy is in your specific cluster. I agree that most people don't want to write a custom policy. But most of those people are
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Colin, "Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Users don't have to build their own tooling, right? They can use any of the shell scripts that we've shipped in the last few releases. For example, if any of your users run it, this shell script will delete all of the topics from your non-security-enabled cluster: ./bin/kafka-topics.sh --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --list 2>/dev/null | xargs -l ./bin/kafka-topics.sh --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --delete --topic They will need to fill in the correct bootstrap servers list, of course, not localhost. This deletion script will work on some pretty old brokers, even back to the 0.10 releases. It seems a little odd to trust your users with this power, but not trust them to avoid changing a particular configuration key." The above will blocked by the server if we set delete.topic.enable to false and thats exactly what I am asking for. "The downside is that if we wanted to check a server side configuration before sending the create topics request, the code would be more complex. The behavior would also not be consistent with how topic auto-creation is handled in Kafka Streams." I am not sure why you need to check server side configuration before sending create topics request. A user enables producer side config to create topics. Producer sends a request to the broker and if the broker has auto.topic.create.enable to true (default) it will allow creation of topics. If it set to false it returns error back to the client. I don't see how this behavior will be different in Kafka streams. By default server allows the topic creation and with this KIP, It will only allow creation of topic when both producer and server side are turned on. Its exactly the same behavior in KIP-361. "In general, it would be nice if we could keep the security and access control model simple and not introduce a lot of special cases and exceptions. Kafka has basically converged on using ACLs and CreateTopicPolicy classes to control who can create topics and where. Adding more knobs seems like a step backwards, especially when the proposed knobs don't work consistently across components, and don't provide true security." This is not about access control at all. Shipping sane defaults should be prioritized. We keep talking about CreateTopicPolicy and yet we don't have default one and asking every user of Kafka implement their own doesn't make sense here. I am asking about exact behavior that we shipped for consumer side https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-361%3A+Add+Consumer+Configuration+to+Disable+Auto+Topic+Creation I still didn't get any response why this behavior shouldn't be exactly like Kafka consumer and why do we want to have producer to overrider server side config and while not allowing consumer to do so. We are not even allowing the same contract and this will cause more confusion from the users standpoint. Thanks, Harsha On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 9:09 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 18:06, Harsha Ch wrote: > > Not sure how the AdminClient applies here, It is an external API and > > is not part of KafkaProducer so any user who updates to latest version of > > Kafka with this feature get to create the topics. > > They have to build a tooling around AdminClient allow themselves to > create > > topics. > > Hi Harsha, > > Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Users don't have to build their own > tooling, right? They can use any of the shell scripts that we've shipped > in the last few releases. For example, if any of your users run it, this > shell script will delete all of the topics from your non-security-enabled > cluster: > > ./bin/kafka-topics.sh --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --list 2>/dev/null > | xargs -l ./bin/kafka-topics.sh --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --delete > --topic > > They will need to fill in the correct bootstrap servers list, of course, > not localhost. This deletion script will work on some pretty old brokers, > even back to the 0.10 releases. It seems a little odd to trust your users > with this power, but not trust them to avoid changing a particular > configuration key. > > > There is no behavior in Kafka producer that allowed users to > > delete the topics or delete the records. So citing them as an > > example doesn't makes sense in this context. > > I think Kafka Streams is relevant here. After all, it's software that we > ship as part of the official Kafka release. And it auto-creates topics > even when auto.create.topics.enable is set to false on the broker. > > I think that auto.create.topics.enable was never intended as a security > setting to control access. It was intended as a way to disable the > broker-side auto-create feature specifically, because there were some > problems with that specific feature. Broker-side auto-creation is > frustrating because it's on by default, and because it can auto-create > topics even if the producer or consumer didn't explicitly ask for that. > Neither of those
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 18:06, Harsha Ch wrote: > Not sure how the AdminClient applies here, It is an external API and > is not part of KafkaProducer so any user who updates to latest version of > Kafka with this feature get to create the topics. > They have to build a tooling around AdminClient allow themselves to create > topics. Hi Harsha, Hmm... I'm not sure I follow. Users don't have to build their own tooling, right? They can use any of the shell scripts that we've shipped in the last few releases. For example, if any of your users run it, this shell script will delete all of the topics from your non-security-enabled cluster: ./bin/kafka-topics.sh --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --list 2>/dev/null | xargs -l ./bin/kafka-topics.sh --bootstrap-server localhost:9092 --delete --topic They will need to fill in the correct bootstrap servers list, of course, not localhost. This deletion script will work on some pretty old brokers, even back to the 0.10 releases. It seems a little odd to trust your users with this power, but not trust them to avoid changing a particular configuration key. > There is no behavior in Kafka producer that allowed users to > delete the topics or delete the records. So citing them as an > example doesn't makes sense in this context. I think Kafka Streams is relevant here. After all, it's software that we ship as part of the official Kafka release. And it auto-creates topics even when auto.create.topics.enable is set to false on the broker. I think that auto.create.topics.enable was never intended as a security setting to control access. It was intended as a way to disable the broker-side auto-create feature specifically, because there were some problems with that specific feature. Broker-side auto-creation is frustrating because it's on by default, and because it can auto-create topics even if the producer or consumer didn't explicitly ask for that. Neither of those problems applies to this KIP: producers have to specifically opt in, and it won't be on by default. Basically, we think that client-side auto-creation is actually a lot better-- hence this KIP :) > But there is > a functionality which allowed creation of topics if they don't exist in the > cluster and this behavior could be controlled by a config on the server > side. Now with this KIP we are allowing producer to make that decision > without any gateway on the server via configs. Any user who is not aware of > such changes > can accidentally create these topics and we are essentially removing a > config that exists in brokers today to block this accidental creation and > allowing clients to take control. Again, I hope I'm not misinterpreting, but I don't see how this can be turned on accidentally. The user would have to specifically turn this on in the producer by setting the configuration key. > I still didn't get any positives of not having server side configs? > if you want to turn them on and allow any client to create topics set the > default to true > and allow users who doesn't want to have this feature let them turn them > off. It will be the exact behavior as it is today, as far as producer is > concerned. I am not > understanding why not having server side configs to gateways such a hard > requirement and this behavior exists today. As far I am concerned this > breaks the backward compatibility. The downside is that if we wanted to check a server side configuration before sending the create topics request, the code would be more complex. The behavior would also not be consistent with how topic auto-creation is handled in Kafka Streams. In general, it would be nice if we could keep the security and access control model simple and not introduce a lot of special cases and exceptions. Kafka has basically converged on using ACLs and CreateTopicPolicy classes to control who can create topics and where. Adding more knobs seems like a step backwards, especially when the proposed knobs don't work consistently across components, and don't provide true security. Maybe we should support an insecure mode where there are still users and ACLs. That would help people who don't want to set up Kerberos, etc. but still want to protect against misconfigured clients or accidents. Hadoop has something like this, and I think it was useful. NFS also supported (supports?) a mode where you just pass whatever user ID you want and the system believes you. These things clearly don't protect against malicious users, but they can help set up policies when needed. best, Colin > > Thanks, > Harsha > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:02 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > Thanks for taking a look. > > > > I'm not sure I follow the discussion about AdminClient. KafkaAdminClient > > has been around for about 2 years at this point as a public class. There > > are many programs that use it to automatically create topics. Kafka > > Streams does this, for
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Justine, Thanks for the clarifications. I understand that auto-creation of topics will happen through CreateTopic request instead of metadata request. What I meant in earlier mail is producer client should not override broker config about auto-creation of topics. I agree with Harsha on other mail about this behavior. If auto-creation is disabled on broker, producer clients will never be allowed to create topics even if 'allow.auto.create.topics' is true in producer client. On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:28 AM Justine Olshan wrote: > > Hi Satish, > > Thanks for looking at the KIP. > > Yes, the producer will wait for the topic to be created before it can send > any messages to it. > > I would like to clarify "overriding" broker behavior. If the client enables > client-side autocreation, the only difference will be that the topic > auto-creation will no longer occur in the metadata request and will instead > come from a CreateTopic request on the producer. > Partitions and replication factor will be determined by the broker configs. > > Is this similar to what you were thinking? Please let me know if there is > something you think I missed. > > Thank you, > Justine > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 12:01 PM Satish Duggana > wrote: > > > Hi Justine, > > Thanks for the KIP. This is a nice addition to the producer client > > without running admin-client’s create topic APIs. Does producer wait > > for the topic to be created successfully before it tries to publish > > messages to that topic? I assume that this will not throw an error > > that the topic does not exist. > > > > As mentioned by others, overriding broker behavior by producer looks > > to be a concern. IMHO, broker should have a way to use either default > > constraints or configure custom constraints before these can be > > overridden by clients but not vice versa. There should be an option on > > brokers whether those constraints can be overridden by producers or > > not. > > > > Thanks, > > Satish. > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:39 PM Justine Olshan > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > > > After taking this all into consideration, I've updated the KIP to no > > longer > > > allow client-side configuration of replication factor and partitions. > > > Instead, the broker defaults will be used as long as the broker supports > > > KIP 464. > > > If the broker does not support this KIP, then the client can not create > > > topics on its own. (Behavior that exists now) > > > > > > I think this will help with your concerns. Please let me know if you > > > further feedback. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Justine > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 10:49 AM Harsha Chintalapani > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Even with policies one needs to implement that, so for every user > > who > > > > doesn't want a producer to create topics or have limits around > > partitions & > > > > replication factor they have to implement a policy. > > > > The KIP is changing the behavior , it might not be introducing > > the > > > > new functionality but it will enable producers to override the create > > topic > > > > config settings on the broker. What I am asking for to provide a config > > > > that will disable auto creation of topics and if its enabled set some > > sane > > > > defaults so that clients can create a topic with in those limits. I > > don't > > > > see how this not related to this KIP. > > > > If the server config options as I suggested doesn't interest you > > at > > > > least have a default CreateTopicPolices in place. > > > >To give an example, In our environment we disable the > > > > auto.create.topic.enable and force users to go through a centralized > > > > service as we want capture more details about the topic creation and > > > > requirements. With this KIP, a producer can create a topic with no > > bounds. > > > > Another example max.message.size we define that at cluster level and > > one > > > > can override max.messsage.size at topic level, any misconfiguration at > > this > > > > will cause service degradation. Its not always about the rogue > > clients, > > > > users can easily misconfigure and can cause an outage. > > > > Again we can talk about CreateTopicPolicy but without having a default > > > > implementation and asking everyone to implement their own while > > changing > > > > the behavior in producer doesn't make sense to me. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Harsha > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 7:41 AM, Ismael Juma > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > > > > > > > I mentioned policies and the authorizer. For example, with > > > > > CreateTopicPolicy, you can implement the limits you describe. If you > > have > > > > > ideas of how that should be improved, please submit a KIP. My point > > is > > > > that > > > > > this KIP is not introducing any new functionality with regards to > > what > > > > > rogue clients can do. It's using the existing protocol that is > > already > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Justin, Thanks for making changes. I still have concern that we are prioritizing producer config over server side which is breaking the backward compatibility of broker's auto.topic.create.enable as far as producer is concerned. Also https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-361%3A+Add+Consumer+Configuration+to+Disable+Auto+Topic+Creation only allows creation of topic if both allow.auto.create.topics set to true and auto.create.topics.enable on the broker side set to true. This KIP is changing that contract for producers and allow them to take control even broker side is turned off. Why can't we have the same behavior. You can still achieve the goal for this KIP by allowing auto.create.topics.enable to take precedence and have a similar behavior to that of consumer. Thanks, Harsha On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 6:06 PM, Harsha Ch wrote: > Hi Colin, > There is no behavior in Kafka producer that allowed users to > delete the topics or delete the records. So > citing them as an example doesn't makes sense in this context. But there > is a functionality which allowed creation of topics if they don't exist in > the cluster and this behavior could be controlled by a config on the server > side. Now with this KIP we are allowing producer to make that decision > without any gateway on the server via configs. Any user who is not aware of > such changes > can accidentally create these topics and we are essentially removing a > config that exists in brokers today to block this accidental creation and > allowing clients to take control. > Not sure how the AdminClient applies here, It is an external API and > is not part of KafkaProducer so any user who updates to latest version of > Kafka with this feature get to create the topics. > They have to build a tooling around AdminClient allow themselves to create > topics. > I still didn't get any positives of not having server side configs? > if you want to turn them on and allow any client to create topics set the > default to true > and allow users who doesn't want to have this feature let them turn them > off. It will be the exact behavior as it is today, as far as producer is > concerned. I am not > understanding why not having server side configs to gateways such a hard > requirement and this behavior exists today. As far I am concerned this > breaks the backward compatibility. > > Thanks, > Harsha > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:02 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > > Hi Harsha, > > Thanks for taking a look. > > I'm not sure I follow the discussion about AdminClient. KafkaAdminClient > has been around for about 2 years at this point as a public class. There > are many programs that use it to automatically create topics. Kafka > Streams does this, for example. If any of your users run Kafka Streams, > they will be auto-creating topics, regardless of what setting you use for > auto.create.topics.enable. > > A big part of the annoyance of auto-topic creation right now is that it is > on by default. The new configuration proposed by KIP-487 wouldn't be. > Users would have to explicitly opt in to the new behavior of client-side > topic creation. If you run without security, you're already putting a huge > amount of trust in your users. For example, you trust them not to delete > records with the kafka-delete-records.sh command, or delete topics with > kafka-topics.sh. Trusting them not to set a certain config value seems > minor in comparison, right? > > best, > Colin > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 10:49, Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > > Hi, > > Even with policies one needs to implement that, so for every user who > > doesn't want a producer to create topics or have limits around > partitions & > > replication factor they have to implement a policy. > > The KIP is changing the behavior , it might not be introducing the > > new functionality but it will enable producers to override the create > topic > > config settings on the broker. What I am asking for to provide a config > > that will disable auto creation of topics and if its enabled set some > sane > > defaults so that clients can create a topic with in those limits. I don't > > see how this not related to this KIP. > > If the server config options as I suggested doesn't interest you at > > least have a default CreateTopicPolices in place. > >To give an example, In our environment we disable the > > auto.create.topic.enable and force users to go through a centralized > > service as we want capture more details about the topic creation and > > requirements. With this KIP, a producer can create a topic with no > bounds. > > Another example max.message.size we define that at cluster level and one > > can override max.messsage.size at topic level, any misconfiguration at > this > > will cause service degradation. Its not always about the rogue clients, > > users can easily misconfigure and can cause an outage. > > Again we can talk about
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Colin, There is no behavior in Kafka producer that allowed users to delete the topics or delete the records. So citing them as an example doesn't makes sense in this context. But there is a functionality which allowed creation of topics if they don't exist in the cluster and this behavior could be controlled by a config on the server side. Now with this KIP we are allowing producer to make that decision without any gateway on the server via configs. Any user who is not aware of such changes can accidentally create these topics and we are essentially removing a config that exists in brokers today to block this accidental creation and allowing clients to take control. Not sure how the AdminClient applies here, It is an external API and is not part of KafkaProducer so any user who updates to latest version of Kafka with this feature get to create the topics. They have to build a tooling around AdminClient allow themselves to create topics. I still didn't get any positives of not having server side configs? if you want to turn them on and allow any client to create topics set the default to true and allow users who doesn't want to have this feature let them turn them off. It will be the exact behavior as it is today, as far as producer is concerned. I am not understanding why not having server side configs to gateways such a hard requirement and this behavior exists today. As far I am concerned this breaks the backward compatibility. Thanks, Harsha On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:02 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > Hi Harsha, > > Thanks for taking a look. > > I'm not sure I follow the discussion about AdminClient. KafkaAdminClient > has been around for about 2 years at this point as a public class. There > are many programs that use it to automatically create topics. Kafka > Streams does this, for example. If any of your users run Kafka Streams, > they will be auto-creating topics, regardless of what setting you use for > auto.create.topics.enable. > > A big part of the annoyance of auto-topic creation right now is that it is > on by default. The new configuration proposed by KIP-487 wouldn't be. > Users would have to explicitly opt in to the new behavior of client-side > topic creation. If you run without security, you're already putting a huge > amount of trust in your users. For example, you trust them not to delete > records with the kafka-delete-records.sh command, or delete topics with > kafka-topics.sh. Trusting them not to set a certain config value seems > minor in comparison, right? > > best, > Colin > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 10:49, Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > > Hi, > > Even with policies one needs to implement that, so for every user who > > doesn't want a producer to create topics or have limits around > partitions & > > replication factor they have to implement a policy. > > The KIP is changing the behavior , it might not be introducing the > > new functionality but it will enable producers to override the create > topic > > config settings on the broker. What I am asking for to provide a config > > that will disable auto creation of topics and if its enabled set some > sane > > defaults so that clients can create a topic with in those limits. I don't > > see how this not related to this KIP. > > If the server config options as I suggested doesn't interest you at > > least have a default CreateTopicPolices in place. > >To give an example, In our environment we disable the > > auto.create.topic.enable and force users to go through a centralized > > service as we want capture more details about the topic creation and > > requirements. With this KIP, a producer can create a topic with no > bounds. > > Another example max.message.size we define that at cluster level and one > > can override max.messsage.size at topic level, any misconfiguration at > this > > will cause service degradation. Its not always about the rogue clients, > > users can easily misconfigure and can cause an outage. > > Again we can talk about CreateTopicPolicy but without having a default > > implementation and asking everyone to implement their own while changing > > the behavior in producer doesn't make sense to me. > > > > Thanks, > > Harsha > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 7:41 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > > > I mentioned policies and the authorizer. For example, with > > > CreateTopicPolicy, you can implement the limits you describe. If you > have > > > ideas of how that should be improved, please submit a KIP. My point is > that > > > this KIP is not introducing any new functionality with regards to what > > > rogue clients can do. It's using the existing protocol that is already > > > exposed via the AdminClient. So, I don't think we need to address it in > > > this KIP. Does that make sense? > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:13 AM Harsha Chintalapani > > > wrote: > > > > > > Ismael, > > > Sure AdminClient can do that and
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Harsha, Thanks for taking a look. I'm not sure I follow the discussion about AdminClient. KafkaAdminClient has been around for about 2 years at this point as a public class. There are many programs that use it to automatically create topics. Kafka Streams does this, for example. If any of your users run Kafka Streams, they will be auto-creating topics, regardless of what setting you use for auto.create.topics.enable. A big part of the annoyance of auto-topic creation right now is that it is on by default. The new configuration proposed by KIP-487 wouldn't be. Users would have to explicitly opt in to the new behavior of client-side topic creation. If you run without security, you're already putting a huge amount of trust in your users. For example, you trust them not to delete records with the kafka-delete-records.sh command, or delete topics with kafka-topics.sh. Trusting them not to set a certain config value seems minor in comparison, right? best, Colin On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, at 10:49, Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > Hi, > Even with policies one needs to implement that, so for every user who > doesn't want a producer to create topics or have limits around partitions & > replication factor they have to implement a policy. > The KIP is changing the behavior , it might not be introducing the > new functionality but it will enable producers to override the create topic > config settings on the broker. What I am asking for to provide a config > that will disable auto creation of topics and if its enabled set some sane > defaults so that clients can create a topic with in those limits. I don't > see how this not related to this KIP. > If the server config options as I suggested doesn't interest you at > least have a default CreateTopicPolices in place. >To give an example, In our environment we disable the > auto.create.topic.enable and force users to go through a centralized > service as we want capture more details about the topic creation and > requirements. With this KIP, a producer can create a topic with no bounds. > Another example max.message.size we define that at cluster level and one > can override max.messsage.size at topic level, any misconfiguration at this > will cause service degradation. Its not always about the rogue clients, > users can easily misconfigure and can cause an outage. > Again we can talk about CreateTopicPolicy but without having a default > implementation and asking everyone to implement their own while changing > the behavior in producer doesn't make sense to me. > > Thanks, > Harsha > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 7:41 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > I mentioned policies and the authorizer. For example, with > > CreateTopicPolicy, you can implement the limits you describe. If you have > > ideas of how that should be improved, please submit a KIP. My point is that > > this KIP is not introducing any new functionality with regards to what > > rogue clients can do. It's using the existing protocol that is already > > exposed via the AdminClient. So, I don't think we need to address it in > > this KIP. Does that make sense? > > > > Ismael > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:13 AM Harsha Chintalapani > > wrote: > > > > Ismael, > > Sure AdminClient can do that and we should've shipped a config or use the > > existing one to block that. Not all users are yet to upgrade to AdminClient > > and start using that to cause issues yet. In shared environment we should > > allow server to set sane defaults and not allow every client to go ahead > > create random no.of topic/partitions and replication factor. Even if the > > users want to allow topic creation proposed in the KIP , it makes sense to > > have some guards against the no.of partitions and replication factor. > > Authorizer is not always an answer to block requests and having users set > > server side configs to protect a multi-tenant environment is required. In a > > non-secure environment Authorizer is a blunt instrument either you end up > > blocking everyone or allowing everyone. > > I am asking to have server side that allow clients to create topics or not > > , if they are allowed set a ceiling on max no.of partitions and > > replication-factor. > > > > -Harsha > > > > On Mon, Aug 5 2019 at 8:58 PM, wrote: > > > > Harsha, > > > > Rogue clients can use the admin client to create topics and partitions. > > ACLs and policies can help in that case as well as this one. > > > > Ismael > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019, 7:48 PM Harsha Chintalapani > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Justine, > > Thanks for the KIP. > > "When server-side auto-creation is disabled, client-side auto-creation > > will try to use client-side configurations" > > If I understand correctly, this KIP is removing any server-side blocking > > client auto creation of topic? > > if so this will present potential issue of rogue client creating ton of > > topic-partitions and potentially bringing down the
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Satish, Thanks for looking at the KIP. Yes, the producer will wait for the topic to be created before it can send any messages to it. I would like to clarify "overriding" broker behavior. If the client enables client-side autocreation, the only difference will be that the topic auto-creation will no longer occur in the metadata request and will instead come from a CreateTopic request on the producer. Partitions and replication factor will be determined by the broker configs. Is this similar to what you were thinking? Please let me know if there is something you think I missed. Thank you, Justine On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 12:01 PM Satish Duggana wrote: > Hi Justine, > Thanks for the KIP. This is a nice addition to the producer client > without running admin-client’s create topic APIs. Does producer wait > for the topic to be created successfully before it tries to publish > messages to that topic? I assume that this will not throw an error > that the topic does not exist. > > As mentioned by others, overriding broker behavior by producer looks > to be a concern. IMHO, broker should have a way to use either default > constraints or configure custom constraints before these can be > overridden by clients but not vice versa. There should be an option on > brokers whether those constraints can be overridden by producers or > not. > > Thanks, > Satish. > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:39 PM Justine Olshan > wrote: > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > After taking this all into consideration, I've updated the KIP to no > longer > > allow client-side configuration of replication factor and partitions. > > Instead, the broker defaults will be used as long as the broker supports > > KIP 464. > > If the broker does not support this KIP, then the client can not create > > topics on its own. (Behavior that exists now) > > > > I think this will help with your concerns. Please let me know if you > > further feedback. > > > > Thank you, > > Justine > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 10:49 AM Harsha Chintalapani > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > Even with policies one needs to implement that, so for every user > who > > > doesn't want a producer to create topics or have limits around > partitions & > > > replication factor they have to implement a policy. > > > The KIP is changing the behavior , it might not be introducing > the > > > new functionality but it will enable producers to override the create > topic > > > config settings on the broker. What I am asking for to provide a config > > > that will disable auto creation of topics and if its enabled set some > sane > > > defaults so that clients can create a topic with in those limits. I > don't > > > see how this not related to this KIP. > > > If the server config options as I suggested doesn't interest you > at > > > least have a default CreateTopicPolices in place. > > >To give an example, In our environment we disable the > > > auto.create.topic.enable and force users to go through a centralized > > > service as we want capture more details about the topic creation and > > > requirements. With this KIP, a producer can create a topic with no > bounds. > > > Another example max.message.size we define that at cluster level and > one > > > can override max.messsage.size at topic level, any misconfiguration at > this > > > will cause service degradation. Its not always about the rogue > clients, > > > users can easily misconfigure and can cause an outage. > > > Again we can talk about CreateTopicPolicy but without having a default > > > implementation and asking everyone to implement their own while > changing > > > the behavior in producer doesn't make sense to me. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Harsha > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 7:41 AM, Ismael Juma > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > > > > > I mentioned policies and the authorizer. For example, with > > > > CreateTopicPolicy, you can implement the limits you describe. If you > have > > > > ideas of how that should be improved, please submit a KIP. My point > is > > > that > > > > this KIP is not introducing any new functionality with regards to > what > > > > rogue clients can do. It's using the existing protocol that is > already > > > > exposed via the AdminClient. So, I don't think we need to address it > in > > > > this KIP. Does that make sense? > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:13 AM Harsha Chintalapani > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Ismael, > > > > Sure AdminClient can do that and we should've shipped a config or > use the > > > > existing one to block that. Not all users are yet to upgrade to > > > AdminClient > > > > and start using that to cause issues yet. In shared environment we > should > > > > allow server to set sane defaults and not allow every client to go > ahead > > > > create random no.of topic/partitions and replication factor. Even if > the > > > > users want to allow topic creation proposed in the KIP , it makes > sense > > > to > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Justine, Thanks for the KIP. This is a nice addition to the producer client without running admin-client’s create topic APIs. Does producer wait for the topic to be created successfully before it tries to publish messages to that topic? I assume that this will not throw an error that the topic does not exist. As mentioned by others, overriding broker behavior by producer looks to be a concern. IMHO, broker should have a way to use either default constraints or configure custom constraints before these can be overridden by clients but not vice versa. There should be an option on brokers whether those constraints can be overridden by producers or not. Thanks, Satish. On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 11:39 PM Justine Olshan wrote: > > Hi Harsha, > > After taking this all into consideration, I've updated the KIP to no longer > allow client-side configuration of replication factor and partitions. > Instead, the broker defaults will be used as long as the broker supports > KIP 464. > If the broker does not support this KIP, then the client can not create > topics on its own. (Behavior that exists now) > > I think this will help with your concerns. Please let me know if you > further feedback. > > Thank you, > Justine > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 10:49 AM Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > > > Hi, > > Even with policies one needs to implement that, so for every user who > > doesn't want a producer to create topics or have limits around partitions & > > replication factor they have to implement a policy. > > The KIP is changing the behavior , it might not be introducing the > > new functionality but it will enable producers to override the create topic > > config settings on the broker. What I am asking for to provide a config > > that will disable auto creation of topics and if its enabled set some sane > > defaults so that clients can create a topic with in those limits. I don't > > see how this not related to this KIP. > > If the server config options as I suggested doesn't interest you at > > least have a default CreateTopicPolices in place. > >To give an example, In our environment we disable the > > auto.create.topic.enable and force users to go through a centralized > > service as we want capture more details about the topic creation and > > requirements. With this KIP, a producer can create a topic with no bounds. > > Another example max.message.size we define that at cluster level and one > > can override max.messsage.size at topic level, any misconfiguration at this > > will cause service degradation. Its not always about the rogue clients, > > users can easily misconfigure and can cause an outage. > > Again we can talk about CreateTopicPolicy but without having a default > > implementation and asking everyone to implement their own while changing > > the behavior in producer doesn't make sense to me. > > > > Thanks, > > Harsha > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 7:41 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > > > I mentioned policies and the authorizer. For example, with > > > CreateTopicPolicy, you can implement the limits you describe. If you have > > > ideas of how that should be improved, please submit a KIP. My point is > > that > > > this KIP is not introducing any new functionality with regards to what > > > rogue clients can do. It's using the existing protocol that is already > > > exposed via the AdminClient. So, I don't think we need to address it in > > > this KIP. Does that make sense? > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:13 AM Harsha Chintalapani > > > wrote: > > > > > > Ismael, > > > Sure AdminClient can do that and we should've shipped a config or use the > > > existing one to block that. Not all users are yet to upgrade to > > AdminClient > > > and start using that to cause issues yet. In shared environment we should > > > allow server to set sane defaults and not allow every client to go ahead > > > create random no.of topic/partitions and replication factor. Even if the > > > users want to allow topic creation proposed in the KIP , it makes sense > > to > > > have some guards against the no.of partitions and replication factor. > > > Authorizer is not always an answer to block requests and having users set > > > server side configs to protect a multi-tenant environment is required. > > In a > > > non-secure environment Authorizer is a blunt instrument either you end up > > > blocking everyone or allowing everyone. > > > I am asking to have server side that allow clients to create topics or > > not > > > , if they are allowed set a ceiling on max no.of partitions and > > > replication-factor. > > > > > > -Harsha > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 5 2019 at 8:58 PM, wrote: > > > > > > Harsha, > > > > > > Rogue clients can use the admin client to create topics and partitions. > > > ACLs and policies can help in that case as well as this one. > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019, 7:48 PM Harsha Chintalapani > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Harsha, After taking this all into consideration, I've updated the KIP to no longer allow client-side configuration of replication factor and partitions. Instead, the broker defaults will be used as long as the broker supports KIP 464. If the broker does not support this KIP, then the client can not create topics on its own. (Behavior that exists now) I think this will help with your concerns. Please let me know if you further feedback. Thank you, Justine On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 10:49 AM Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > Hi, > Even with policies one needs to implement that, so for every user who > doesn't want a producer to create topics or have limits around partitions & > replication factor they have to implement a policy. > The KIP is changing the behavior , it might not be introducing the > new functionality but it will enable producers to override the create topic > config settings on the broker. What I am asking for to provide a config > that will disable auto creation of topics and if its enabled set some sane > defaults so that clients can create a topic with in those limits. I don't > see how this not related to this KIP. > If the server config options as I suggested doesn't interest you at > least have a default CreateTopicPolices in place. >To give an example, In our environment we disable the > auto.create.topic.enable and force users to go through a centralized > service as we want capture more details about the topic creation and > requirements. With this KIP, a producer can create a topic with no bounds. > Another example max.message.size we define that at cluster level and one > can override max.messsage.size at topic level, any misconfiguration at this > will cause service degradation. Its not always about the rogue clients, > users can easily misconfigure and can cause an outage. > Again we can talk about CreateTopicPolicy but without having a default > implementation and asking everyone to implement their own while changing > the behavior in producer doesn't make sense to me. > > Thanks, > Harsha > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 7:41 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > Hi Harsha, > > > > I mentioned policies and the authorizer. For example, with > > CreateTopicPolicy, you can implement the limits you describe. If you have > > ideas of how that should be improved, please submit a KIP. My point is > that > > this KIP is not introducing any new functionality with regards to what > > rogue clients can do. It's using the existing protocol that is already > > exposed via the AdminClient. So, I don't think we need to address it in > > this KIP. Does that make sense? > > > > Ismael > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:13 AM Harsha Chintalapani > > wrote: > > > > Ismael, > > Sure AdminClient can do that and we should've shipped a config or use the > > existing one to block that. Not all users are yet to upgrade to > AdminClient > > and start using that to cause issues yet. In shared environment we should > > allow server to set sane defaults and not allow every client to go ahead > > create random no.of topic/partitions and replication factor. Even if the > > users want to allow topic creation proposed in the KIP , it makes sense > to > > have some guards against the no.of partitions and replication factor. > > Authorizer is not always an answer to block requests and having users set > > server side configs to protect a multi-tenant environment is required. > In a > > non-secure environment Authorizer is a blunt instrument either you end up > > blocking everyone or allowing everyone. > > I am asking to have server side that allow clients to create topics or > not > > , if they are allowed set a ceiling on max no.of partitions and > > replication-factor. > > > > -Harsha > > > > On Mon, Aug 5 2019 at 8:58 PM, wrote: > > > > Harsha, > > > > Rogue clients can use the admin client to create topics and partitions. > > ACLs and policies can help in that case as well as this one. > > > > Ismael > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019, 7:48 PM Harsha Chintalapani > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Justine, > > Thanks for the KIP. > > "When server-side auto-creation is disabled, client-side auto-creation > > will try to use client-side configurations" > > If I understand correctly, this KIP is removing any server-side blocking > > client auto creation of topic? > > if so this will present potential issue of rogue client creating ton of > > topic-partitions and potentially bringing down the service for everyone > > > > or > > > > degrade the service itself. > > By reading the KIP its not clear to me that there is a clear way to block > > auto creation topics of all together from clients by server side config. > > Server side configs of default topic, partitions should take higher > > precedence and client shouldn't be able to create a topic with higher > > > > no.of > > > > partitions, replication than what server config specifies. > > > > Thanks, > > Harsha > > > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 5:24 PM, Justine
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi, Even with policies one needs to implement that, so for every user who doesn't want a producer to create topics or have limits around partitions & replication factor they have to implement a policy. The KIP is changing the behavior , it might not be introducing the new functionality but it will enable producers to override the create topic config settings on the broker. What I am asking for to provide a config that will disable auto creation of topics and if its enabled set some sane defaults so that clients can create a topic with in those limits. I don't see how this not related to this KIP. If the server config options as I suggested doesn't interest you at least have a default CreateTopicPolices in place. To give an example, In our environment we disable the auto.create.topic.enable and force users to go through a centralized service as we want capture more details about the topic creation and requirements. With this KIP, a producer can create a topic with no bounds. Another example max.message.size we define that at cluster level and one can override max.messsage.size at topic level, any misconfiguration at this will cause service degradation. Its not always about the rogue clients, users can easily misconfigure and can cause an outage. Again we can talk about CreateTopicPolicy but without having a default implementation and asking everyone to implement their own while changing the behavior in producer doesn't make sense to me. Thanks, Harsha On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 7:41 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > Hi Harsha, > > I mentioned policies and the authorizer. For example, with > CreateTopicPolicy, you can implement the limits you describe. If you have > ideas of how that should be improved, please submit a KIP. My point is that > this KIP is not introducing any new functionality with regards to what > rogue clients can do. It's using the existing protocol that is already > exposed via the AdminClient. So, I don't think we need to address it in > this KIP. Does that make sense? > > Ismael > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:13 AM Harsha Chintalapani > wrote: > > Ismael, > Sure AdminClient can do that and we should've shipped a config or use the > existing one to block that. Not all users are yet to upgrade to AdminClient > and start using that to cause issues yet. In shared environment we should > allow server to set sane defaults and not allow every client to go ahead > create random no.of topic/partitions and replication factor. Even if the > users want to allow topic creation proposed in the KIP , it makes sense to > have some guards against the no.of partitions and replication factor. > Authorizer is not always an answer to block requests and having users set > server side configs to protect a multi-tenant environment is required. In a > non-secure environment Authorizer is a blunt instrument either you end up > blocking everyone or allowing everyone. > I am asking to have server side that allow clients to create topics or not > , if they are allowed set a ceiling on max no.of partitions and > replication-factor. > > -Harsha > > On Mon, Aug 5 2019 at 8:58 PM, wrote: > > Harsha, > > Rogue clients can use the admin client to create topics and partitions. > ACLs and policies can help in that case as well as this one. > > Ismael > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019, 7:48 PM Harsha Chintalapani > > wrote: > > Hi Justine, > Thanks for the KIP. > "When server-side auto-creation is disabled, client-side auto-creation > will try to use client-side configurations" > If I understand correctly, this KIP is removing any server-side blocking > client auto creation of topic? > if so this will present potential issue of rogue client creating ton of > topic-partitions and potentially bringing down the service for everyone > > or > > degrade the service itself. > By reading the KIP its not clear to me that there is a clear way to block > auto creation topics of all together from clients by server side config. > Server side configs of default topic, partitions should take higher > precedence and client shouldn't be able to create a topic with higher > > no.of > > partitions, replication than what server config specifies. > > Thanks, > Harsha > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 5:24 PM, Justine Olshan > wrote: > > Hi all, > I made some changes to the KIP. Hopefully this configuration change > > will > > make things a little clearer. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > KIP-487%3A+Client-side+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer > > Please let me know if you have any feedback or questions! > > Thank you, > Justine > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:44 PM Colin McCabe > > wrote: > > Hi Mickael, > > I think you bring up a good point. It would be better if we didn't ever > have to set up client-side configuration for this feature, and KIP-464 > would let us skip this entirely. > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, at 09:19, Justine Olshan wrote: > > Hi Mickael, > I agree that KIP-464 works on newer brokers, but I was
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Harsha, I mentioned policies and the authorizer. For example, with CreateTopicPolicy, you can implement the limits you describe. If you have ideas of how that should be improved, please submit a KIP. My point is that this KIP is not introducing any new functionality with regards to what rogue clients can do. It's using the existing protocol that is already exposed via the AdminClient. So, I don't think we need to address it in this KIP. Does that make sense? Ismael On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 7:13 AM Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > Ismael, > Sure AdminClient can do that and we should've shipped a config or > use the existing one to block that. Not all users are yet to upgrade to > AdminClient and start using that to cause issues yet. > In shared environment we should allow server to set sane > defaults and not allow every client to go ahead create random no.of > topic/partitions and replication factor. Even if the users want to allow > topic creation proposed in the KIP , it makes sense to have some guards > against the no.of partitions and replication factor. Authorizer is not > always an answer to block requests and having users set server side configs > to protect a multi-tenant environment is required. In a non-secure > environment Authorizer is a blunt instrument either you end up blocking > everyone or allowing everyone. > I am asking to have server side that allow clients to create topics or not > , if they are allowed set a ceiling on max no.of partitions and > replication-factor. > > -Harsha > > > > On Mon, Aug 5 2019 at 8:58 PM, wrote: > > > Harsha, > > > > Rogue clients can use the admin client to create topics and partitions. > > ACLs and policies can help in that case as well as this one. > > > > Ismael > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019, 7:48 PM Harsha Chintalapani > wrote: > > > > Hi Justine, > > Thanks for the KIP. > > "When server-side auto-creation is disabled, client-side auto-creation > > will try to use client-side configurations" > > If I understand correctly, this KIP is removing any server-side blocking > > client auto creation of topic? > > if so this will present potential issue of rogue client creating ton of > > topic-partitions and potentially bringing down the service for everyone > or > > degrade the service itself. > > By reading the KIP its not clear to me that there is a clear way to block > > auto creation topics of all together from clients by server side config. > > Server side configs of default topic, partitions should take higher > > precedence and client shouldn't be able to create a topic with higher > no.of > > partitions, replication than what server config specifies. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Harsha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 5:24 PM, Justine Olshan > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > I made some changes to the KIP. Hopefully this configuration change > will > > > make things a little clearer. > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > > KIP-487%3A+Client-side+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer > > > > > > Please let me know if you have any feedback or questions! > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Justine > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:44 PM Colin McCabe > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mickael, > > > > > > I think you bring up a good point. It would be better if we didn't ever > > > have to set up client-side configuration for this feature, and KIP-464 > > > would let us skip this entirely. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, at 09:19, Justine Olshan wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mickael, > > > I agree that KIP-464 works on newer brokers, but I was a bit worried > how > > > things would play out on older brokers that* do not *have KIP 464 > > > > > > included. > > > > > > Is it enough to throw an error in this case when producer configs are > > not > > > specified? > > > > > > I think the right thing to do would be to log an error message in the > > > client. We will need to have that capability in any case, to cover > > > scenarios like the client trying to auto-create a topic that they don't > > > have permission to create. Or a client trying to create a topic on a > > broker > > > so old that CreateTopicsRequest is not supported. > > > > > > The big downside to relying on KIP-464 is that it is a very recent > > feature > > > -- so recent that it hasn't even made its way to any official Apache > > > release. It's scheduled for the upcoming 2.4 release in a few months. > > > > > > So if you view this KIP as a step towards removing broker-side > > > auto-create, you might want to support older brokers just to accelerate > > > adoption, and hasten the day when we can finally flip broker-side > > > auto-create to off (or even remove it entirely). > > > > > > I have to agree, though, that having client-side configurations for > > number > > > of partitions and replication factor is messy. Maybe it would be worth > > it > > > to restrict support to post-KIP-464 brokers, if we could avoid
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Ismael, Sure AdminClient can do that and we should've shipped a config or use the existing one to block that. Not all users are yet to upgrade to AdminClient and start using that to cause issues yet. In shared environment we should allow server to set sane defaults and not allow every client to go ahead create random no.of topic/partitions and replication factor. Even if the users want to allow topic creation proposed in the KIP , it makes sense to have some guards against the no.of partitions and replication factor. Authorizer is not always an answer to block requests and having users set server side configs to protect a multi-tenant environment is required. In a non-secure environment Authorizer is a blunt instrument either you end up blocking everyone or allowing everyone. I am asking to have server side that allow clients to create topics or not , if they are allowed set a ceiling on max no.of partitions and replication-factor. -Harsha On Mon, Aug 5 2019 at 8:58 PM, wrote: > Harsha, > > Rogue clients can use the admin client to create topics and partitions. > ACLs and policies can help in that case as well as this one. > > Ismael > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019, 7:48 PM Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > > Hi Justine, > Thanks for the KIP. > "When server-side auto-creation is disabled, client-side auto-creation > will try to use client-side configurations" > If I understand correctly, this KIP is removing any server-side blocking > client auto creation of topic? > if so this will present potential issue of rogue client creating ton of > topic-partitions and potentially bringing down the service for everyone or > degrade the service itself. > By reading the KIP its not clear to me that there is a clear way to block > auto creation topics of all together from clients by server side config. > Server side configs of default topic, partitions should take higher > precedence and client shouldn't be able to create a topic with higher no.of > partitions, replication than what server config specifies. > > > > > Thanks, > Harsha > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 5:24 PM, Justine Olshan > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > I made some changes to the KIP. Hopefully this configuration change will > > make things a little clearer. > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > KIP-487%3A+Client-side+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer > > > > Please let me know if you have any feedback or questions! > > > > Thank you, > > Justine > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:44 PM Colin McCabe > wrote: > > > > Hi Mickael, > > > > I think you bring up a good point. It would be better if we didn't ever > > have to set up client-side configuration for this feature, and KIP-464 > > would let us skip this entirely. > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, at 09:19, Justine Olshan wrote: > > > > Hi Mickael, > > I agree that KIP-464 works on newer brokers, but I was a bit worried how > > things would play out on older brokers that* do not *have KIP 464 > > > > included. > > > > Is it enough to throw an error in this case when producer configs are > not > > specified? > > > > I think the right thing to do would be to log an error message in the > > client. We will need to have that capability in any case, to cover > > scenarios like the client trying to auto-create a topic that they don't > > have permission to create. Or a client trying to create a topic on a > broker > > so old that CreateTopicsRequest is not supported. > > > > The big downside to relying on KIP-464 is that it is a very recent > feature > > -- so recent that it hasn't even made its way to any official Apache > > release. It's scheduled for the upcoming 2.4 release in a few months. > > > > So if you view this KIP as a step towards removing broker-side > > auto-create, you might want to support older brokers just to accelerate > > adoption, and hasten the day when we can finally flip broker-side > > auto-create to off (or even remove it entirely). > > > > I have to agree, though, that having client-side configurations for > number > > of partitions and replication factor is messy. Maybe it would be worth > it > > to restrict support to post-KIP-464 brokers, if we could avoid creating > > more configs. > > > > best, > > Colin > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:10 AM Mickael Maison > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > We can rely on KIP-464 which allows to omit the partition count or > > replication factor when creating a topic. In that case, the broker > defaults > > are used. > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:55 PM Justine Olshan > > wrote: > > > > Michael, > > That makes sense to me! > > To clarify, in the current state of the KIP, the producer does not > > > > rely > > > > on > > > > the broker to autocreate--if the broker's config is disabled, then > > > > the > > > > producer can autocreate on its own with a create topic request (the > > > > same > > > > type of request the admin client uses). > > However, if both configs are
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Harsha, Rogue clients can use the admin client to create topics and partitions. ACLs and policies can help in that case as well as this one. Ismael On Mon, Aug 5, 2019, 7:48 PM Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > Hi Justine, > Thanks for the KIP. > "When server-side auto-creation is disabled, client-side auto-creation will > try to use client-side configurations" > If I understand correctly, this KIP is removing any server-side blocking > client auto creation of topic? > if so this will present potential issue of rogue client creating ton of > topic-partitions and potentially bringing down the service for everyone or > degrade the service itself. > By reading the KIP its not clear to me that there is a clear way to block > auto creation topics of all together from clients by server side config. > Server side configs of default topic, partitions should take higher > precedence and client shouldn't be able to create a topic with higher no.of > partitions, replication than what server config specifies. > > Thanks, > Harsha > > > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 5:24 PM, Justine Olshan > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > I made some changes to the KIP. Hopefully this configuration change will > > make things a little clearer. > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > KIP-487%3A+Client-side+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer > > > > Please let me know if you have any feedback or questions! > > > > Thank you, > > Justine > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:44 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > > > > Hi Mickael, > > > > I think you bring up a good point. It would be better if we didn't ever > > have to set up client-side configuration for this feature, and KIP-464 > > would let us skip this entirely. > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, at 09:19, Justine Olshan wrote: > > > > Hi Mickael, > > I agree that KIP-464 works on newer brokers, but I was a bit worried how > > things would play out on older brokers that* do not *have KIP 464 > > > > included. > > > > Is it enough to throw an error in this case when producer configs are not > > specified? > > > > I think the right thing to do would be to log an error message in the > > client. We will need to have that capability in any case, to cover > > scenarios like the client trying to auto-create a topic that they don't > > have permission to create. Or a client trying to create a topic on a > broker > > so old that CreateTopicsRequest is not supported. > > > > The big downside to relying on KIP-464 is that it is a very recent > feature > > -- so recent that it hasn't even made its way to any official Apache > > release. It's scheduled for the upcoming 2.4 release in a few months. > > > > So if you view this KIP as a step towards removing broker-side > > auto-create, you might want to support older brokers just to accelerate > > adoption, and hasten the day when we can finally flip broker-side > > auto-create to off (or even remove it entirely). > > > > I have to agree, though, that having client-side configurations for > number > > of partitions and replication factor is messy. Maybe it would be worth it > > to restrict support to post-KIP-464 brokers, if we could avoid creating > > more configs. > > > > best, > > Colin > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:10 AM Mickael Maison > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > We can rely on KIP-464 which allows to omit the partition count or > > replication factor when creating a topic. In that case, the broker > defaults > > are used. > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:55 PM Justine Olshan > > wrote: > > > > Michael, > > That makes sense to me! > > To clarify, in the current state of the KIP, the producer does not > > > > rely > > > > on > > > > the broker to autocreate--if the broker's config is disabled, then > > > > the > > > > producer can autocreate on its own with a create topic request (the > > > > same > > > > type of request the admin client uses). > > However, if both configs are enabled, the broker will autocreate > > > > through > > > > a > > > > metadata request before the producer gets a chance. Of course, the way to > > avoid this, is to do as you suggested, and set > > > > the > > > > "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false. > > > > I think the only thing we need to be careful with in this setup is > > > > without > > > > KIP 464, we can not use broker defaults for this topic. A user needs > > > > to > > > > specify the number of partition and replication factor in the config. An > > alternative to this is to have coded defaults for when these > > > > configs > > > > are > > > > unspecified, but it is not immediately apparent what these defaults > > > > should > > > > be. > > > > Thanks again for reading my KIP, > > Justine > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:19 AM Mickael Maison < > > > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > Thanks for the response! > > In my opinion, it would be better if the producer did not rely at > > > > all > > > > on the broker auto create feature as
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Justine, Thanks for the KIP. "When server-side auto-creation is disabled, client-side auto-creation will try to use client-side configurations" If I understand correctly, this KIP is removing any server-side blocking client auto creation of topic? if so this will present potential issue of rogue client creating ton of topic-partitions and potentially bringing down the service for everyone or degrade the service itself. By reading the KIP its not clear to me that there is a clear way to block auto creation topics of all together from clients by server side config. Server side configs of default topic, partitions should take higher precedence and client shouldn't be able to create a topic with higher no.of partitions, replication than what server config specifies. Thanks, Harsha On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 5:24 PM, Justine Olshan wrote: > Hi all, > I made some changes to the KIP. Hopefully this configuration change will > make things a little clearer. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > KIP-487%3A+Client-side+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer > > Please let me know if you have any feedback or questions! > > Thank you, > Justine > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:44 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > > Hi Mickael, > > I think you bring up a good point. It would be better if we didn't ever > have to set up client-side configuration for this feature, and KIP-464 > would let us skip this entirely. > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, at 09:19, Justine Olshan wrote: > > Hi Mickael, > I agree that KIP-464 works on newer brokers, but I was a bit worried how > things would play out on older brokers that* do not *have KIP 464 > > included. > > Is it enough to throw an error in this case when producer configs are not > specified? > > I think the right thing to do would be to log an error message in the > client. We will need to have that capability in any case, to cover > scenarios like the client trying to auto-create a topic that they don't > have permission to create. Or a client trying to create a topic on a broker > so old that CreateTopicsRequest is not supported. > > The big downside to relying on KIP-464 is that it is a very recent feature > -- so recent that it hasn't even made its way to any official Apache > release. It's scheduled for the upcoming 2.4 release in a few months. > > So if you view this KIP as a step towards removing broker-side > auto-create, you might want to support older brokers just to accelerate > adoption, and hasten the day when we can finally flip broker-side > auto-create to off (or even remove it entirely). > > I have to agree, though, that having client-side configurations for number > of partitions and replication factor is messy. Maybe it would be worth it > to restrict support to post-KIP-464 brokers, if we could avoid creating > more configs. > > best, > Colin > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:10 AM Mickael Maison > wrote: > > Hi Justine, > > We can rely on KIP-464 which allows to omit the partition count or > replication factor when creating a topic. In that case, the broker defaults > are used. > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:55 PM Justine Olshan > wrote: > > Michael, > That makes sense to me! > To clarify, in the current state of the KIP, the producer does not > > rely > > on > > the broker to autocreate--if the broker's config is disabled, then > > the > > producer can autocreate on its own with a create topic request (the > > same > > type of request the admin client uses). > However, if both configs are enabled, the broker will autocreate > > through > > a > > metadata request before the producer gets a chance. Of course, the way to > avoid this, is to do as you suggested, and set > > the > > "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false. > > I think the only thing we need to be careful with in this setup is > > without > > KIP 464, we can not use broker defaults for this topic. A user needs > > to > > specify the number of partition and replication factor in the config. An > alternative to this is to have coded defaults for when these > > configs > > are > > unspecified, but it is not immediately apparent what these defaults > > should > > be. > > Thanks again for reading my KIP, > Justine > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:19 AM Mickael Maison < > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > Hi Justine, > > Thanks for the response! > In my opinion, it would be better if the producer did not rely at > > all > > on the broker auto create feature as this is what we're aiming to > deprecate. When requesting metadata we can set the > "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false to avoid the broker auto > creation. Then if the topic is not existing, send a CreateTopicRequest. > > What do you think? > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:34 PM Justine Olshan < > > jols...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > Currently the way it is implemented, the broker auto-creation > > configuration > > takes precedence. The producer will not use the CreateTopics > > request. > > (Technically it can--but
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi all, I made some changes to the KIP. Hopefully this configuration change will make things a little clearer. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-487%3A+Client-side+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer Please let me know if you have any feedback or questions! Thank you, Justine On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:44 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > Hi Mickael, > > I think you bring up a good point. It would be better if we didn't ever > have to set up client-side configuration for this feature, and KIP-464 > would let us skip this entirely. > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, at 09:19, Justine Olshan wrote: > > Hi Mickael, > > I agree that KIP-464 works on newer brokers, but I was a bit worried how > > things would play out on older brokers that* do not *have KIP 464 > included. > > Is it enough to throw an error in this case when producer configs are not > > specified? > > I think the right thing to do would be to log an error message in the > client. We will need to have that capability in any case, to cover > scenarios like the client trying to auto-create a topic that they don't > have permission to create. Or a client trying to create a topic on a > broker so old that CreateTopicsRequest is not supported. > > The big downside to relying on KIP-464 is that it is a very recent feature > -- so recent that it hasn't even made its way to any official Apache > release. It's scheduled for the upcoming 2.4 release in a few months. > > So if you view this KIP as a step towards removing broker-side > auto-create, you might want to support older brokers just to accelerate > adoption, and hasten the day when we can finally flip broker-side > auto-create to off (or even remove it entirely). > > I have to agree, though, that having client-side configurations for number > of partitions and replication factor is messy. Maybe it would be worth it > to restrict support to post-KIP-464 brokers, if we could avoid creating > more configs. > > best, > Colin > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:10 AM Mickael Maison > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > We can rely on KIP-464 which allows to omit the partition count or > > > replication factor when creating a topic. In that case, the broker > > > defaults are used. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:55 PM Justine Olshan > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Michael, > > > > That makes sense to me! > > > > To clarify, in the current state of the KIP, the producer does not > rely > > > on > > > > the broker to autocreate--if the broker's config is disabled, then > the > > > > producer can autocreate on its own with a create topic request (the > same > > > > type of request the admin client uses). > > > > However, if both configs are enabled, the broker will autocreate > through > > > a > > > > metadata request before the producer gets a chance. > > > > Of course, the way to avoid this, is to do as you suggested, and set > the > > > > "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false. > > > > > > > > I think the only thing we need to be careful with in this setup is > > > without > > > > KIP 464, we can not use broker defaults for this topic. A user needs > to > > > > specify the number of partition and replication factor in the config. > > > > An alternative to this is to have coded defaults for when these > configs > > > are > > > > unspecified, but it is not immediately apparent what these defaults > > > should > > > > be. > > > > > > > > Thanks again for reading my KIP, > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:19 AM Mickael Maison < > mickael.mai...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response! > > > > > In my opinion, it would be better if the producer did not rely at > all > > > > > on the broker auto create feature as this is what we're aiming to > > > > > deprecate. When requesting metadata we can set the > > > > > "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false to avoid the broker auto > > > > > creation. Then if the topic is not existing, send a > > > > > CreateTopicRequest. > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:34 PM Justine Olshan < > jols...@confluent.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently the way it is implemented, the broker auto-creation > > > > > configuration > > > > > > takes precedence. The producer will not use the CreateTopics > request. > > > > > > (Technically it can--but the topic will already be created > through > > > the > > > > > > broker, so it will never try to create the topic.) > > > > > > It is possible to change this however, and I'd be happy to > discuss > > > the > > > > > > benefits of this alternative. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:26 AM Mickael Maison < > > > > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In case auto
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Mickael, I think you bring up a good point. It would be better if we didn't ever have to set up client-side configuration for this feature, and KIP-464 would let us skip this entirely. On Wed, Jul 31, 2019, at 09:19, Justine Olshan wrote: > Hi Mickael, > I agree that KIP-464 works on newer brokers, but I was a bit worried how > things would play out on older brokers that* do not *have KIP 464 included. > Is it enough to throw an error in this case when producer configs are not > specified? I think the right thing to do would be to log an error message in the client. We will need to have that capability in any case, to cover scenarios like the client trying to auto-create a topic that they don't have permission to create. Or a client trying to create a topic on a broker so old that CreateTopicsRequest is not supported. The big downside to relying on KIP-464 is that it is a very recent feature -- so recent that it hasn't even made its way to any official Apache release. It's scheduled for the upcoming 2.4 release in a few months. So if you view this KIP as a step towards removing broker-side auto-create, you might want to support older brokers just to accelerate adoption, and hasten the day when we can finally flip broker-side auto-create to off (or even remove it entirely). I have to agree, though, that having client-side configurations for number of partitions and replication factor is messy. Maybe it would be worth it to restrict support to post-KIP-464 brokers, if we could avoid creating more configs. best, Colin > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:10 AM Mickael Maison > wrote: > > > Hi Justine, > > > > We can rely on KIP-464 which allows to omit the partition count or > > replication factor when creating a topic. In that case, the broker > > defaults are used. > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:55 PM Justine Olshan > > wrote: > > > > > > Michael, > > > That makes sense to me! > > > To clarify, in the current state of the KIP, the producer does not rely > > on > > > the broker to autocreate--if the broker's config is disabled, then the > > > producer can autocreate on its own with a create topic request (the same > > > type of request the admin client uses). > > > However, if both configs are enabled, the broker will autocreate through > > a > > > metadata request before the producer gets a chance. > > > Of course, the way to avoid this, is to do as you suggested, and set the > > > "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false. > > > > > > I think the only thing we need to be careful with in this setup is > > without > > > KIP 464, we can not use broker defaults for this topic. A user needs to > > > specify the number of partition and replication factor in the config. > > > An alternative to this is to have coded defaults for when these configs > > are > > > unspecified, but it is not immediately apparent what these defaults > > should > > > be. > > > > > > Thanks again for reading my KIP, > > > Justine > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:19 AM Mickael Maison > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response! > > > > In my opinion, it would be better if the producer did not rely at all > > > > on the broker auto create feature as this is what we're aiming to > > > > deprecate. When requesting metadata we can set the > > > > "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false to avoid the broker auto > > > > creation. Then if the topic is not existing, send a > > > > CreateTopicRequest. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:34 PM Justine Olshan > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Currently the way it is implemented, the broker auto-creation > > > > configuration > > > > > takes precedence. The producer will not use the CreateTopics request. > > > > > (Technically it can--but the topic will already be created through > > the > > > > > broker, so it will never try to create the topic.) > > > > > It is possible to change this however, and I'd be happy to discuss > > the > > > > > benefits of this alternative. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:26 AM Mickael Maison < > > > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! > > > > > > > > > > > > In case auto creation is enabled on both the client and server, > > will > > > > > > the producer still use the AdminClient (CreateTopics request) to > > > > > > create topics? and not rely on the broker auto create. > > > > > > I'm guessing the answer is yes but can you make it explicit. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Justine Olshan < > > jols...@confluent.io> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > Just a friendly reminder to take a look at this KIP if you have > > the > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking about broker vs. client default
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Mickael, I agree that KIP-464 works on newer brokers, but I was a bit worried how things would play out on older brokers that* do not *have KIP 464 included. Is it enough to throw an error in this case when producer configs are not specified? Thanks, Justine On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 9:10 AM Mickael Maison wrote: > Hi Justine, > > We can rely on KIP-464 which allows to omit the partition count or > replication factor when creating a topic. In that case, the broker > defaults are used. > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:55 PM Justine Olshan > wrote: > > > > Michael, > > That makes sense to me! > > To clarify, in the current state of the KIP, the producer does not rely > on > > the broker to autocreate--if the broker's config is disabled, then the > > producer can autocreate on its own with a create topic request (the same > > type of request the admin client uses). > > However, if both configs are enabled, the broker will autocreate through > a > > metadata request before the producer gets a chance. > > Of course, the way to avoid this, is to do as you suggested, and set the > > "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false. > > > > I think the only thing we need to be careful with in this setup is > without > > KIP 464, we can not use broker defaults for this topic. A user needs to > > specify the number of partition and replication factor in the config. > > An alternative to this is to have coded defaults for when these configs > are > > unspecified, but it is not immediately apparent what these defaults > should > > be. > > > > Thanks again for reading my KIP, > > Justine > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:19 AM Mickael Maison > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > Thanks for the response! > > > In my opinion, it would be better if the producer did not rely at all > > > on the broker auto create feature as this is what we're aiming to > > > deprecate. When requesting metadata we can set the > > > "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false to avoid the broker auto > > > creation. Then if the topic is not existing, send a > > > CreateTopicRequest. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:34 PM Justine Olshan > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Currently the way it is implemented, the broker auto-creation > > > configuration > > > > takes precedence. The producer will not use the CreateTopics request. > > > > (Technically it can--but the topic will already be created through > the > > > > broker, so it will never try to create the topic.) > > > > It is possible to change this however, and I'd be happy to discuss > the > > > > benefits of this alternative. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:26 AM Mickael Maison < > > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! > > > > > > > > > > In case auto creation is enabled on both the client and server, > will > > > > > the producer still use the AdminClient (CreateTopics request) to > > > > > create topics? and not rely on the broker auto create. > > > > > I'm guessing the answer is yes but can you make it explicit. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Justine Olshan < > jols...@confluent.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Just a friendly reminder to take a look at this KIP if you have > the > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking about broker vs. client default precedence, and I > > > think it > > > > > > makes sense to keep the broker as the default used when both > > > client-side > > > > > > and broker-side defaults are configured. The idea is that there > > > would be > > > > > > pretty clear documentation, and that many systems with > configurations > > > > > that > > > > > > the client could not change would likely have the auto-create > default > > > > > off. > > > > > > (In cloud for example). > > > > > > > > > > > > It also seems like in most cases, the consumer config > > > > > > 'allow.auto.create.topics' was created to actually prevent the > > > creation > > > > > of > > > > > > topics, so the loss of creation functionality will not be a big > > > problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm happy to discuss any other compatibility problems or > components > > > of > > > > > > this KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:11 AM Justine Olshan < > jols...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was looking at this KIP again, and there is a decision I made > > > that I > > > > > > > think is worth discussing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the case where both the broker and producer's > > > > > > > 'auto.create.topics.enable' are set to true, we have to choose > > > either > > > > > the > > > > > > > broker configs or the producer configs for the replication > > > > > > > factor/partitions. > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Justine, We can rely on KIP-464 which allows to omit the partition count or replication factor when creating a topic. In that case, the broker defaults are used. On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:55 PM Justine Olshan wrote: > > Michael, > That makes sense to me! > To clarify, in the current state of the KIP, the producer does not rely on > the broker to autocreate--if the broker's config is disabled, then the > producer can autocreate on its own with a create topic request (the same > type of request the admin client uses). > However, if both configs are enabled, the broker will autocreate through a > metadata request before the producer gets a chance. > Of course, the way to avoid this, is to do as you suggested, and set the > "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false. > > I think the only thing we need to be careful with in this setup is without > KIP 464, we can not use broker defaults for this topic. A user needs to > specify the number of partition and replication factor in the config. > An alternative to this is to have coded defaults for when these configs are > unspecified, but it is not immediately apparent what these defaults should > be. > > Thanks again for reading my KIP, > Justine > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:19 AM Mickael Maison > wrote: > > > Hi Justine, > > > > Thanks for the response! > > In my opinion, it would be better if the producer did not rely at all > > on the broker auto create feature as this is what we're aiming to > > deprecate. When requesting metadata we can set the > > "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false to avoid the broker auto > > creation. Then if the topic is not existing, send a > > CreateTopicRequest. > > > > What do you think? > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:34 PM Justine Olshan > > wrote: > > > > > > Currently the way it is implemented, the broker auto-creation > > configuration > > > takes precedence. The producer will not use the CreateTopics request. > > > (Technically it can--but the topic will already be created through the > > > broker, so it will never try to create the topic.) > > > It is possible to change this however, and I'd be happy to discuss the > > > benefits of this alternative. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Justine > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:26 AM Mickael Maison < > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! > > > > > > > > In case auto creation is enabled on both the client and server, will > > > > the producer still use the AdminClient (CreateTopics request) to > > > > create topics? and not rely on the broker auto create. > > > > I'm guessing the answer is yes but can you make it explicit. > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Justine Olshan > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > Just a friendly reminder to take a look at this KIP if you have the > > time. > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking about broker vs. client default precedence, and I > > think it > > > > > makes sense to keep the broker as the default used when both > > client-side > > > > > and broker-side defaults are configured. The idea is that there > > would be > > > > > pretty clear documentation, and that many systems with configurations > > > > that > > > > > the client could not change would likely have the auto-create default > > > > off. > > > > > (In cloud for example). > > > > > > > > > > It also seems like in most cases, the consumer config > > > > > 'allow.auto.create.topics' was created to actually prevent the > > creation > > > > of > > > > > topics, so the loss of creation functionality will not be a big > > problem. > > > > > > > > > > I'm happy to discuss any other compatibility problems or components > > of > > > > > this KIP. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:11 AM Justine Olshan > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I was looking at this KIP again, and there is a decision I made > > that I > > > > > > think is worth discussing. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the case where both the broker and producer's > > > > > > 'auto.create.topics.enable' are set to true, we have to choose > > either > > > > the > > > > > > broker configs or the producer configs for the replication > > > > > > factor/partitions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, the decision is to have the broker defaults take > > precedence. > > > > > > (It is easier to do this in the implementation.) It also makes some > > > > sense > > > > > > for this behavior to take precedence since this behavior already > > > > occurs as > > > > > > the default. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I was wondering if it would be odd for those who can only > > see > > > > the > > > > > > producer side to set configs for replication factor/partitions and > > see > > > > > > different results. Currently the documentation for the config > > states > > > > that > > > > > > the config values are only used
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Michael, That makes sense to me! To clarify, in the current state of the KIP, the producer does not rely on the broker to autocreate--if the broker's config is disabled, then the producer can autocreate on its own with a create topic request (the same type of request the admin client uses). However, if both configs are enabled, the broker will autocreate through a metadata request before the producer gets a chance. Of course, the way to avoid this, is to do as you suggested, and set the "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false. I think the only thing we need to be careful with in this setup is without KIP 464, we can not use broker defaults for this topic. A user needs to specify the number of partition and replication factor in the config. An alternative to this is to have coded defaults for when these configs are unspecified, but it is not immediately apparent what these defaults should be. Thanks again for reading my KIP, Justine On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:19 AM Mickael Maison wrote: > Hi Justine, > > Thanks for the response! > In my opinion, it would be better if the producer did not rely at all > on the broker auto create feature as this is what we're aiming to > deprecate. When requesting metadata we can set the > "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false to avoid the broker auto > creation. Then if the topic is not existing, send a > CreateTopicRequest. > > What do you think? > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:34 PM Justine Olshan > wrote: > > > > Currently the way it is implemented, the broker auto-creation > configuration > > takes precedence. The producer will not use the CreateTopics request. > > (Technically it can--but the topic will already be created through the > > broker, so it will never try to create the topic.) > > It is possible to change this however, and I'd be happy to discuss the > > benefits of this alternative. > > > > Thank you, > > Justine > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:26 AM Mickael Maison < > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! > > > > > > In case auto creation is enabled on both the client and server, will > > > the producer still use the AdminClient (CreateTopics request) to > > > create topics? and not rely on the broker auto create. > > > I'm guessing the answer is yes but can you make it explicit. > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Justine Olshan > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Just a friendly reminder to take a look at this KIP if you have the > time. > > > > > > > > I was thinking about broker vs. client default precedence, and I > think it > > > > makes sense to keep the broker as the default used when both > client-side > > > > and broker-side defaults are configured. The idea is that there > would be > > > > pretty clear documentation, and that many systems with configurations > > > that > > > > the client could not change would likely have the auto-create default > > > off. > > > > (In cloud for example). > > > > > > > > It also seems like in most cases, the consumer config > > > > 'allow.auto.create.topics' was created to actually prevent the > creation > > > of > > > > topics, so the loss of creation functionality will not be a big > problem. > > > > > > > > I'm happy to discuss any other compatibility problems or components > of > > > > this KIP. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:11 AM Justine Olshan > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > I was looking at this KIP again, and there is a decision I made > that I > > > > > think is worth discussing. > > > > > > > > > > In the case where both the broker and producer's > > > > > 'auto.create.topics.enable' are set to true, we have to choose > either > > > the > > > > > broker configs or the producer configs for the replication > > > > > factor/partitions. > > > > > > > > > > Currently, the decision is to have the broker defaults take > precedence. > > > > > (It is easier to do this in the implementation.) It also makes some > > > sense > > > > > for this behavior to take precedence since this behavior already > > > occurs as > > > > > the default. > > > > > > > > > > However, I was wondering if it would be odd for those who can only > see > > > the > > > > > producer side to set configs for replication factor/partitions and > see > > > > > different results. Currently the documentation for the config > states > > > that > > > > > the config values are only used when the broker config is not > enabled, > > > but > > > > > this might not always be clear to the user. Changing the code to > have > > > the > > > > > producer's configurations take precedence is possible, but I was > > > wondering > > > > > what everyone thought. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:49 PM Justine Olshan < > jols...@confluent.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Just a quick update-- > > > > >> > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Justine, Thanks for the response! In my opinion, it would be better if the producer did not rely at all on the broker auto create feature as this is what we're aiming to deprecate. When requesting metadata we can set the "allow_auto_topic_creation" field to false to avoid the broker auto creation. Then if the topic is not existing, send a CreateTopicRequest. What do you think? On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:34 PM Justine Olshan wrote: > > Currently the way it is implemented, the broker auto-creation configuration > takes precedence. The producer will not use the CreateTopics request. > (Technically it can--but the topic will already be created through the > broker, so it will never try to create the topic.) > It is possible to change this however, and I'd be happy to discuss the > benefits of this alternative. > > Thank you, > Justine > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:26 AM Mickael Maison > wrote: > > > Hi Justine, > > > > Thanks for the KIP! > > > > In case auto creation is enabled on both the client and server, will > > the producer still use the AdminClient (CreateTopics request) to > > create topics? and not rely on the broker auto create. > > I'm guessing the answer is yes but can you make it explicit. > > > > Thank you > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Justine Olshan > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > Just a friendly reminder to take a look at this KIP if you have the time. > > > > > > I was thinking about broker vs. client default precedence, and I think it > > > makes sense to keep the broker as the default used when both client-side > > > and broker-side defaults are configured. The idea is that there would be > > > pretty clear documentation, and that many systems with configurations > > that > > > the client could not change would likely have the auto-create default > > off. > > > (In cloud for example). > > > > > > It also seems like in most cases, the consumer config > > > 'allow.auto.create.topics' was created to actually prevent the creation > > of > > > topics, so the loss of creation functionality will not be a big problem. > > > > > > I'm happy to discuss any other compatibility problems or components of > > > this KIP. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Justine > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:11 AM Justine Olshan > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > I was looking at this KIP again, and there is a decision I made that I > > > > think is worth discussing. > > > > > > > > In the case where both the broker and producer's > > > > 'auto.create.topics.enable' are set to true, we have to choose either > > the > > > > broker configs or the producer configs for the replication > > > > factor/partitions. > > > > > > > > Currently, the decision is to have the broker defaults take precedence. > > > > (It is easier to do this in the implementation.) It also makes some > > sense > > > > for this behavior to take precedence since this behavior already > > occurs as > > > > the default. > > > > > > > > However, I was wondering if it would be odd for those who can only see > > the > > > > producer side to set configs for replication factor/partitions and see > > > > different results. Currently the documentation for the config states > > that > > > > the config values are only used when the broker config is not enabled, > > but > > > > this might not always be clear to the user. Changing the code to have > > the > > > > producer's configurations take precedence is possible, but I was > > wondering > > > > what everyone thought. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Justine > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:49 PM Justine Olshan > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Just a quick update-- > > > >> > > > >> It seems that enabling both the broker and producer configs works > > fine, > > > >> except that the broker configurations for partitions, replication > > factor > > > >> take precedence. > > > >> I don't know if that is something we would want to change, but I'll be > > > >> updating the KIP for now to reflect this. Perhaps we would want to > > add more > > > >> to the documentation of the the producer configs to clarify. > > > >> > > > >> Thank you, > > > >> Justine > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:28 AM Justine Olshan > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi Colin, > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks for looking at the KIP. I can definitely add to the title to > > make > > > >>> it more clear. > > > >>> > > > >>> It makes sense that both configurations could be turned on since > > there > > > >>> are many cases where the user can not control the server-side > > > >>> configurations. I was a little concerned about how both interacting > > would > > > >>> work out -- if there would be to many requests for new topics, for > > example. > > > >>> But it since it does make sense to allow both configurations > > enabled, I > > > >>> will test out some scenarios and I'll change the KIP to support this. > > > >>> > > > >>> I also agree with documentation about distinguishing the > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Currently the way it is implemented, the broker auto-creation configuration takes precedence. The producer will not use the CreateTopics request. (Technically it can--but the topic will already be created through the broker, so it will never try to create the topic.) It is possible to change this however, and I'd be happy to discuss the benefits of this alternative. Thank you, Justine On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:26 AM Mickael Maison wrote: > Hi Justine, > > Thanks for the KIP! > > In case auto creation is enabled on both the client and server, will > the producer still use the AdminClient (CreateTopics request) to > create topics? and not rely on the broker auto create. > I'm guessing the answer is yes but can you make it explicit. > > Thank you > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Justine Olshan > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > Just a friendly reminder to take a look at this KIP if you have the time. > > > > I was thinking about broker vs. client default precedence, and I think it > > makes sense to keep the broker as the default used when both client-side > > and broker-side defaults are configured. The idea is that there would be > > pretty clear documentation, and that many systems with configurations > that > > the client could not change would likely have the auto-create default > off. > > (In cloud for example). > > > > It also seems like in most cases, the consumer config > > 'allow.auto.create.topics' was created to actually prevent the creation > of > > topics, so the loss of creation functionality will not be a big problem. > > > > I'm happy to discuss any other compatibility problems or components of > > this KIP. > > > > Thank you, > > Justine > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:11 AM Justine Olshan > wrote: > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I was looking at this KIP again, and there is a decision I made that I > > > think is worth discussing. > > > > > > In the case where both the broker and producer's > > > 'auto.create.topics.enable' are set to true, we have to choose either > the > > > broker configs or the producer configs for the replication > > > factor/partitions. > > > > > > Currently, the decision is to have the broker defaults take precedence. > > > (It is easier to do this in the implementation.) It also makes some > sense > > > for this behavior to take precedence since this behavior already > occurs as > > > the default. > > > > > > However, I was wondering if it would be odd for those who can only see > the > > > producer side to set configs for replication factor/partitions and see > > > different results. Currently the documentation for the config states > that > > > the config values are only used when the broker config is not enabled, > but > > > this might not always be clear to the user. Changing the code to have > the > > > producer's configurations take precedence is possible, but I was > wondering > > > what everyone thought. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Justine > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:49 PM Justine Olshan > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Just a quick update-- > > >> > > >> It seems that enabling both the broker and producer configs works > fine, > > >> except that the broker configurations for partitions, replication > factor > > >> take precedence. > > >> I don't know if that is something we would want to change, but I'll be > > >> updating the KIP for now to reflect this. Perhaps we would want to > add more > > >> to the documentation of the the producer configs to clarify. > > >> > > >> Thank you, > > >> Justine > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:28 AM Justine Olshan > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Colin, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for looking at the KIP. I can definitely add to the title to > make > > >>> it more clear. > > >>> > > >>> It makes sense that both configurations could be turned on since > there > > >>> are many cases where the user can not control the server-side > > >>> configurations. I was a little concerned about how both interacting > would > > >>> work out -- if there would be to many requests for new topics, for > example. > > >>> But it since it does make sense to allow both configurations > enabled, I > > >>> will test out some scenarios and I'll change the KIP to support this. > > >>> > > >>> I also agree with documentation about distinguishing the > differences. I > > >>> was having some trouble with the wording but I like the phrases > > >>> "server-side" and "client-side." That's a good distinction I can use > when > > >>> describing. > > >>> > > >>> I'll try to update the KIP soon keeping everyone's input in mind. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Justine > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 5:39 PM Colin McCabe > wrote: > > >>> > > Hi Justine, > > > > Thanks for the KIP. This seems like a good step towards removing > > server-side topic auto-creation. > > > > We should add included "client-side" to the title of the KIP > somewhere, > > to make it clear that we're talking about client-side auto
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Justine, Thanks for the KIP! In case auto creation is enabled on both the client and server, will the producer still use the AdminClient (CreateTopics request) to create topics? and not rely on the broker auto create. I'm guessing the answer is yes but can you make it explicit. Thank you On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 6:23 PM Justine Olshan wrote: > > Hi, > Just a friendly reminder to take a look at this KIP if you have the time. > > I was thinking about broker vs. client default precedence, and I think it > makes sense to keep the broker as the default used when both client-side > and broker-side defaults are configured. The idea is that there would be > pretty clear documentation, and that many systems with configurations that > the client could not change would likely have the auto-create default off. > (In cloud for example). > > It also seems like in most cases, the consumer config > 'allow.auto.create.topics' was created to actually prevent the creation of > topics, so the loss of creation functionality will not be a big problem. > > I'm happy to discuss any other compatibility problems or components of > this KIP. > > Thank you, > Justine > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:11 AM Justine Olshan wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > I was looking at this KIP again, and there is a decision I made that I > > think is worth discussing. > > > > In the case where both the broker and producer's > > 'auto.create.topics.enable' are set to true, we have to choose either the > > broker configs or the producer configs for the replication > > factor/partitions. > > > > Currently, the decision is to have the broker defaults take precedence. > > (It is easier to do this in the implementation.) It also makes some sense > > for this behavior to take precedence since this behavior already occurs as > > the default. > > > > However, I was wondering if it would be odd for those who can only see the > > producer side to set configs for replication factor/partitions and see > > different results. Currently the documentation for the config states that > > the config values are only used when the broker config is not enabled, but > > this might not always be clear to the user. Changing the code to have the > > producer's configurations take precedence is possible, but I was wondering > > what everyone thought. > > > > Thank you, > > Justine > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:49 PM Justine Olshan > > wrote: > > > >> Just a quick update-- > >> > >> It seems that enabling both the broker and producer configs works fine, > >> except that the broker configurations for partitions, replication factor > >> take precedence. > >> I don't know if that is something we would want to change, but I'll be > >> updating the KIP for now to reflect this. Perhaps we would want to add more > >> to the documentation of the the producer configs to clarify. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Justine > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:28 AM Justine Olshan > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Colin, > >>> > >>> Thanks for looking at the KIP. I can definitely add to the title to make > >>> it more clear. > >>> > >>> It makes sense that both configurations could be turned on since there > >>> are many cases where the user can not control the server-side > >>> configurations. I was a little concerned about how both interacting would > >>> work out -- if there would be to many requests for new topics, for > >>> example. > >>> But it since it does make sense to allow both configurations enabled, I > >>> will test out some scenarios and I'll change the KIP to support this. > >>> > >>> I also agree with documentation about distinguishing the differences. I > >>> was having some trouble with the wording but I like the phrases > >>> "server-side" and "client-side." That's a good distinction I can use when > >>> describing. > >>> > >>> I'll try to update the KIP soon keeping everyone's input in mind. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Justine > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 5:39 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > >>> > Hi Justine, > > Thanks for the KIP. This seems like a good step towards removing > server-side topic auto-creation. > > We should add included "client-side" to the title of the KIP somewhere, > to make it clear that we're talking about client-side auto creation. > > The KIP says: > > In order to automatically create topics with the producer, the > producer's > > auto.create.topics.enable config must be set to true and the broker > config should be set to false > > From a user's point of view, this seems counter-intuitive. In order to > auto-create topics the broker's auto.create.topics.enable config should > be > set to false? It seems like the server-side auto-create is unrelated to > the client-side auto-create. We could have both turned on (and I'm sure > that in the real world, people will try this configuration...) There's > no > reason not to support this, I
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi, Just a friendly reminder to take a look at this KIP if you have the time. I was thinking about broker vs. client default precedence, and I think it makes sense to keep the broker as the default used when both client-side and broker-side defaults are configured. The idea is that there would be pretty clear documentation, and that many systems with configurations that the client could not change would likely have the auto-create default off. (In cloud for example). It also seems like in most cases, the consumer config 'allow.auto.create.topics' was created to actually prevent the creation of topics, so the loss of creation functionality will not be a big problem. I'm happy to discuss any other compatibility problems or components of this KIP. Thank you, Justine On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:11 AM Justine Olshan wrote: > Hello all, > > I was looking at this KIP again, and there is a decision I made that I > think is worth discussing. > > In the case where both the broker and producer's > 'auto.create.topics.enable' are set to true, we have to choose either the > broker configs or the producer configs for the replication > factor/partitions. > > Currently, the decision is to have the broker defaults take precedence. > (It is easier to do this in the implementation.) It also makes some sense > for this behavior to take precedence since this behavior already occurs as > the default. > > However, I was wondering if it would be odd for those who can only see the > producer side to set configs for replication factor/partitions and see > different results. Currently the documentation for the config states that > the config values are only used when the broker config is not enabled, but > this might not always be clear to the user. Changing the code to have the > producer's configurations take precedence is possible, but I was wondering > what everyone thought. > > Thank you, > Justine > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:49 PM Justine Olshan > wrote: > >> Just a quick update-- >> >> It seems that enabling both the broker and producer configs works fine, >> except that the broker configurations for partitions, replication factor >> take precedence. >> I don't know if that is something we would want to change, but I'll be >> updating the KIP for now to reflect this. Perhaps we would want to add more >> to the documentation of the the producer configs to clarify. >> >> Thank you, >> Justine >> >> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:28 AM Justine Olshan >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Colin, >>> >>> Thanks for looking at the KIP. I can definitely add to the title to make >>> it more clear. >>> >>> It makes sense that both configurations could be turned on since there >>> are many cases where the user can not control the server-side >>> configurations. I was a little concerned about how both interacting would >>> work out -- if there would be to many requests for new topics, for example. >>> But it since it does make sense to allow both configurations enabled, I >>> will test out some scenarios and I'll change the KIP to support this. >>> >>> I also agree with documentation about distinguishing the differences. I >>> was having some trouble with the wording but I like the phrases >>> "server-side" and "client-side." That's a good distinction I can use when >>> describing. >>> >>> I'll try to update the KIP soon keeping everyone's input in mind. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Justine >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 5:39 PM Colin McCabe wrote: >>> Hi Justine, Thanks for the KIP. This seems like a good step towards removing server-side topic auto-creation. We should add included "client-side" to the title of the KIP somewhere, to make it clear that we're talking about client-side auto creation. The KIP says: > In order to automatically create topics with the producer, the producer's > auto.create.topics.enable config must be set to true and the broker config should be set to false From a user's point of view, this seems counter-intuitive. In order to auto-create topics the broker's auto.create.topics.enable config should be set to false? It seems like the server-side auto-create is unrelated to the client-side auto-create. We could have both turned on (and I'm sure that in the real world, people will try this configuration...) There's no reason not to support this, I think. We should add some documentation explaining the difference between server-side and client-side auto-creation. Without documentation, an admin might think that they had disabled all forms of auto-creation by setting the -side setting to false-- but this is not the case, of course. best, Colin On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, at 16:22, Justine Olshan wrote: > Hi Dhruvil, > > Thanks for reading the KIP! > That was the general idea for deprecation. We would log a warning when the > config is enabled on the
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hello all, I was looking at this KIP again, and there is a decision I made that I think is worth discussing. In the case where both the broker and producer's 'auto.create.topics.enable' are set to true, we have to choose either the broker configs or the producer configs for the replication factor/partitions. Currently, the decision is to have the broker defaults take precedence. (It is easier to do this in the implementation.) It also makes some sense for this behavior to take precedence since this behavior already occurs as the default. However, I was wondering if it would be odd for those who can only see the producer side to set configs for replication factor/partitions and see different results. Currently the documentation for the config states that the config values are only used when the broker config is not enabled, but this might not always be clear to the user. Changing the code to have the producer's configurations take precedence is possible, but I was wondering what everyone thought. Thank you, Justine On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:49 PM Justine Olshan wrote: > Just a quick update-- > > It seems that enabling both the broker and producer configs works fine, > except that the broker configurations for partitions, replication factor > take precedence. > I don't know if that is something we would want to change, but I'll be > updating the KIP for now to reflect this. Perhaps we would want to add more > to the documentation of the the producer configs to clarify. > > Thank you, > Justine > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:28 AM Justine Olshan > wrote: > >> Hi Colin, >> >> Thanks for looking at the KIP. I can definitely add to the title to make >> it more clear. >> >> It makes sense that both configurations could be turned on since there >> are many cases where the user can not control the server-side >> configurations. I was a little concerned about how both interacting would >> work out -- if there would be to many requests for new topics, for example. >> But it since it does make sense to allow both configurations enabled, I >> will test out some scenarios and I'll change the KIP to support this. >> >> I also agree with documentation about distinguishing the differences. I >> was having some trouble with the wording but I like the phrases >> "server-side" and "client-side." That's a good distinction I can use when >> describing. >> >> I'll try to update the KIP soon keeping everyone's input in mind. >> >> Thanks, >> Justine >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 5:39 PM Colin McCabe wrote: >> >>> Hi Justine, >>> >>> Thanks for the KIP. This seems like a good step towards removing >>> server-side topic auto-creation. >>> >>> We should add included "client-side" to the title of the KIP somewhere, >>> to make it clear that we're talking about client-side auto creation. >>> >>> The KIP says: >>> > In order to automatically create topics with the producer, the >>> producer's >>> > auto.create.topics.enable config must be set to true and the broker >>> config should be set to false >>> >>> From a user's point of view, this seems counter-intuitive. In order to >>> auto-create topics the broker's auto.create.topics.enable config should be >>> set to false? It seems like the server-side auto-create is unrelated to >>> the client-side auto-create. We could have both turned on (and I'm sure >>> that in the real world, people will try this configuration...) There's no >>> reason not to support this, I think. >>> >>> We should add some documentation explaining the difference between >>> server-side and client-side auto-creation. Without documentation, an admin >>> might think that they had disabled all forms of auto-creation by setting >>> the -side setting to false-- but this is not the case, of course. >>> >>> best, >>> Colin >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, at 16:22, Justine Olshan wrote: >>> > Hi Dhruvil, >>> > >>> > Thanks for reading the KIP! >>> > That was the general idea for deprecation. We would log a warning when >>> the >>> > config is enabled on the broker. >>> > I also believe that there would be a change to documentation. >>> > If there is anything else that should be done, please let me know! >>> > >>> > Justine >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:17 PM Dhruvil Shah >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi Justine, >>> > > >>> > > Thanks for the KIP, this is great! >>> > > >>> > > Could you add some more information about what deprecating the broker >>> > > configuration means? Would we log a warning in the logs when auto >>> topic >>> > > creation is enabled on the broker, for example? >>> > > >>> > > Thanks, >>> > > Dhruvil >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Justine Olshan < >>> jols...@confluent.io> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > Hello all, >>> > > > >>> > > > I'd like to start a discussion thread for KIP-487. >>> > > > This KIP plans to deprecate the current system of auto-creating >>> topics >>> > > > through requests to the metadata and give the producer the ability >>> to >>> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Just a quick update-- It seems that enabling both the broker and producer configs works fine, except that the broker configurations for partitions, replication factor take precedence. I don't know if that is something we would want to change, but I'll be updating the KIP for now to reflect this. Perhaps we would want to add more to the documentation of the the producer configs to clarify. Thank you, Justine On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:28 AM Justine Olshan wrote: > Hi Colin, > > Thanks for looking at the KIP. I can definitely add to the title to make > it more clear. > > It makes sense that both configurations could be turned on since there are > many cases where the user can not control the server-side configurations. I > was a little concerned about how both interacting would work out -- if > there would be to many requests for new topics, for example. But it since > it does make sense to allow both configurations enabled, I will test out > some scenarios and I'll change the KIP to support this. > > I also agree with documentation about distinguishing the differences. I > was having some trouble with the wording but I like the phrases > "server-side" and "client-side." That's a good distinction I can use when > describing. > > I'll try to update the KIP soon keeping everyone's input in mind. > > Thanks, > Justine > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 5:39 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > >> Hi Justine, >> >> Thanks for the KIP. This seems like a good step towards removing >> server-side topic auto-creation. >> >> We should add included "client-side" to the title of the KIP somewhere, >> to make it clear that we're talking about client-side auto creation. >> >> The KIP says: >> > In order to automatically create topics with the producer, the >> producer's >> > auto.create.topics.enable config must be set to true and the broker >> config should be set to false >> >> From a user's point of view, this seems counter-intuitive. In order to >> auto-create topics the broker's auto.create.topics.enable config should be >> set to false? It seems like the server-side auto-create is unrelated to >> the client-side auto-create. We could have both turned on (and I'm sure >> that in the real world, people will try this configuration...) There's no >> reason not to support this, I think. >> >> We should add some documentation explaining the difference between >> server-side and client-side auto-creation. Without documentation, an admin >> might think that they had disabled all forms of auto-creation by setting >> the -side setting to false-- but this is not the case, of course. >> >> best, >> Colin >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, at 16:22, Justine Olshan wrote: >> > Hi Dhruvil, >> > >> > Thanks for reading the KIP! >> > That was the general idea for deprecation. We would log a warning when >> the >> > config is enabled on the broker. >> > I also believe that there would be a change to documentation. >> > If there is anything else that should be done, please let me know! >> > >> > Justine >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:17 PM Dhruvil Shah >> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Justine, >> > > >> > > Thanks for the KIP, this is great! >> > > >> > > Could you add some more information about what deprecating the broker >> > > configuration means? Would we log a warning in the logs when auto >> topic >> > > creation is enabled on the broker, for example? >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Dhruvil >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Justine Olshan > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hello all, >> > > > >> > > > I'd like to start a discussion thread for KIP-487. >> > > > This KIP plans to deprecate the current system of auto-creating >> topics >> > > > through requests to the metadata and give the producer the ability >> to >> > > > automatically create topics instead. >> > > > >> > > > More information can be found here: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-487%3A+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer >> > > > >> > > > Thank you, >> > > > Justine Olshan >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Colin, Thanks for looking at the KIP. I can definitely add to the title to make it more clear. It makes sense that both configurations could be turned on since there are many cases where the user can not control the server-side configurations. I was a little concerned about how both interacting would work out -- if there would be to many requests for new topics, for example. But it since it does make sense to allow both configurations enabled, I will test out some scenarios and I'll change the KIP to support this. I also agree with documentation about distinguishing the differences. I was having some trouble with the wording but I like the phrases "server-side" and "client-side." That's a good distinction I can use when describing. I'll try to update the KIP soon keeping everyone's input in mind. Thanks, Justine On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 5:39 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > Hi Justine, > > Thanks for the KIP. This seems like a good step towards removing > server-side topic auto-creation. > > We should add included "client-side" to the title of the KIP somewhere, to > make it clear that we're talking about client-side auto creation. > > The KIP says: > > In order to automatically create topics with the producer, the > producer's > > auto.create.topics.enable config must be set to true and the broker > config should be set to false > > From a user's point of view, this seems counter-intuitive. In order to > auto-create topics the broker's auto.create.topics.enable config should be > set to false? It seems like the server-side auto-create is unrelated to > the client-side auto-create. We could have both turned on (and I'm sure > that in the real world, people will try this configuration...) There's no > reason not to support this, I think. > > We should add some documentation explaining the difference between > server-side and client-side auto-creation. Without documentation, an admin > might think that they had disabled all forms of auto-creation by setting > the -side setting to false-- but this is not the case, of course. > > best, > Colin > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, at 16:22, Justine Olshan wrote: > > Hi Dhruvil, > > > > Thanks for reading the KIP! > > That was the general idea for deprecation. We would log a warning when > the > > config is enabled on the broker. > > I also believe that there would be a change to documentation. > > If there is anything else that should be done, please let me know! > > > > Justine > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:17 PM Dhruvil Shah > wrote: > > > > > Hi Justine, > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, this is great! > > > > > > Could you add some more information about what deprecating the broker > > > configuration means? Would we log a warning in the logs when auto topic > > > creation is enabled on the broker, for example? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Dhruvil > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Justine Olshan > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > I'd like to start a discussion thread for KIP-487. > > > > This KIP plans to deprecate the current system of auto-creating > topics > > > > through requests to the metadata and give the producer the ability to > > > > automatically create topics instead. > > > > > > > > More information can be found here: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-487%3A+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Justine Olshan > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Justine, Thanks for the KIP. This seems like a good step towards removing server-side topic auto-creation. We should add included "client-side" to the title of the KIP somewhere, to make it clear that we're talking about client-side auto creation. The KIP says: > In order to automatically create topics with the producer, the producer's > auto.create.topics.enable config must be set to true and the broker config > should be set to false >From a user's point of view, this seems counter-intuitive. In order to >auto-create topics the broker's auto.create.topics.enable config should be set >to false? It seems like the server-side auto-create is unrelated to the >client-side auto-create. We could have both turned on (and I'm sure that in >the real world, people will try this configuration...) There's no reason not >to support this, I think. We should add some documentation explaining the difference between server-side and client-side auto-creation. Without documentation, an admin might think that they had disabled all forms of auto-creation by setting the -side setting to false-- but this is not the case, of course. best, Colin On Thu, Jul 11, 2019, at 16:22, Justine Olshan wrote: > Hi Dhruvil, > > Thanks for reading the KIP! > That was the general idea for deprecation. We would log a warning when the > config is enabled on the broker. > I also believe that there would be a change to documentation. > If there is anything else that should be done, please let me know! > > Justine > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:17 PM Dhruvil Shah wrote: > > > Hi Justine, > > > > Thanks for the KIP, this is great! > > > > Could you add some more information about what deprecating the broker > > configuration means? Would we log a warning in the logs when auto topic > > creation is enabled on the broker, for example? > > > > Thanks, > > Dhruvil > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Justine Olshan > > wrote: > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > I'd like to start a discussion thread for KIP-487. > > > This KIP plans to deprecate the current system of auto-creating topics > > > through requests to the metadata and give the producer the ability to > > > automatically create topics instead. > > > > > > More information can be found here: > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-487%3A+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Justine Olshan > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Dhruvil, Thanks for reading the KIP! That was the general idea for deprecation. We would log a warning when the config is enabled on the broker. I also believe that there would be a change to documentation. If there is anything else that should be done, please let me know! Justine On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:17 PM Dhruvil Shah wrote: > Hi Justine, > > Thanks for the KIP, this is great! > > Could you add some more information about what deprecating the broker > configuration means? Would we log a warning in the logs when auto topic > creation is enabled on the broker, for example? > > Thanks, > Dhruvil > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Justine Olshan > wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > I'd like to start a discussion thread for KIP-487. > > This KIP plans to deprecate the current system of auto-creating topics > > through requests to the metadata and give the producer the ability to > > automatically create topics instead. > > > > More information can be found here: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-487%3A+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer > > > > Thank you, > > Justine Olshan > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hi Justine, Thanks for the KIP, this is great! Could you add some more information about what deprecating the broker configuration means? Would we log a warning in the logs when auto topic creation is enabled on the broker, for example? Thanks, Dhruvil On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Justine Olshan wrote: > Hello all, > > I'd like to start a discussion thread for KIP-487. > This KIP plans to deprecate the current system of auto-creating topics > through requests to the metadata and give the producer the ability to > automatically create topics instead. > > More information can be found here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-487%3A+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer > > Thank you, > Justine Olshan >
[DISCUSS] KIP-487: Automatic Topic Creation on Producer
Hello all, I'd like to start a discussion thread for KIP-487. This KIP plans to deprecate the current system of auto-creating topics through requests to the metadata and give the producer the ability to automatically create topics instead. More information can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-487%3A+Automatic+Topic+Creation+on+Producer Thank you, Justine Olshan
