And you guys like the existing helper code for that? -Jay
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Neha Narkhede <neha.narkh...@gmail.com>wrote: > I'm not so sure about the static config names used in the producer, but I'm > +1 on using the key value approach for configs to ease operability. > > Thanks, > Neha > > > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 for the key-value approach. > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > We touched on this a bit in previous discussions, but I wanted to draw > > out > > > the approach to config specifically as an item of discussion. > > > > > > The new producer and consumer use a similar key-value config approach > as > > > the existing scala clients but have different implementation code to > help > > > define these configs. The plan is to use the same approach on the > server, > > > once the new clients are complete; so if we agree on this approach it > > will > > > be the new default across the board. > > > > > > Let me split this into two parts. First I will try to motivate the use > of > > > key-value pairs as a configuration api. Then let me discuss the > mechanics > > > of specifying and parsing these. If we agree on the public api then the > > > public api then the implementation details are interesting as this will > > be > > > shared across producer, consumer, and broker and potentially some > tools; > > > but if we disagree about the api then there is no point in discussing > the > > > implementation. > > > > > > Let me explain the rationale for this. In a sense a key-value map of > > > configs is the worst possible API to the programmer using the clients. > > Let > > > me contrast the pros and cons versus a POJO and motivate why I think it > > is > > > still superior overall. > > > > > > Pro: An application can externalize the configuration of its kafka > > clients > > > into its own configuration. Whatever config management system the > client > > > application is using will likely support key-value pairs, so the client > > > should be able to directly pull whatever configurations are present and > > use > > > them in its client. This means that any configuration the client > supports > > > can be added to any application at runtime. With the pojo approach the > > > client application has to expose each pojo getter as some config > > parameter. > > > The result of many applications doing this is that the config is > > different > > > for each and it is very hard to have a standard client config shared > > > across. Moving config into config files allows the usual tooling > (version > > > control, review, audit, config deployments separate from code pushes, > > > etc.). > > > > > > Pro: Backwards and forwards compatibility. Provided we stick to our > java > > > api many internals can evolve and expose new configs. The application > can > > > support both the new and old client by just specifying a config that > will > > > be unused in the older version (and of course the reverse--we can > remove > > > obsolete configs). > > > > > > Pro: We can use a similar mechanism for both the client and the server. > > > Since most people run the server as a stand-alone process it needs a > > config > > > file. > > > > > > Pro: Systems like Samza that need to ship configs across the network > can > > > easily do so as configs have a natural serialized form. This can be > done > > > with pojos using java serialization but it is ugly and has bizare > failure > > > cases. > > > > > > Con: The IDE gives nice auto-completion for pojos. > > > > > > Con: There are some advantages to javadoc as a documentation mechanism > > for > > > java people. > > > > > > Basically to me this is about operability versus niceness of api and I > > > think operability is more important. > > > > > > Let me now give some details of the config support classes in > > > kafka.common.config and how they are intended to be used. > > > > > > The goal of this code is the following: > > > 1. Make specifying configs, their expected type (string, numbers, > lists, > > > etc) simple and declarative > > > 2. Allow for validating simple checks (numeric range checks, etc) > > > 3. Make the config "self-documenting". I.e. we should be able to write > > code > > > that generates the configuration documentation off the config def. > > > 4. Specify default values. > > > 5. Track which configs actually get used. > > > 6. Make it easy to get config values. > > > > > > There are two classes there: ConfigDef and AbstractConfig. ConfigDef > > > defines the specification of the accepted configurations and > > AbstractConfig > > > is a helper class for implementing the configuration class. The > > difference > > > is kind of like the difference between a "class" and an "object": > > ConfigDef > > > is for specifying the configurations that are accepted, AbstractConfig > is > > > the base class for an instance of these configs. > > > > > > You can see this in action here: > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=kafka.git;a=blob_plain;f=clients/src/main/java/kafka/clients/producer/ProducerConfig.java;hb=HEAD > > > > > > (Ignore the static config names in there for now...I'm not actually > sure > > > that is the best approach). > > > > > > So the way this works is that the config specification is defined as: > > > > > > config = new ConfigDef().define("bootstrap.brokers", Type.LIST, > > > "documentation") > > > > > > .define("metadata.timeout.ms", > > Type.LONG, > > > 60 * 1000, atLeast(0), "documentation") > > > .define("max.partition.size", Type.INT, > > > 16384, atLeast(0), "documentation") > > > > > > > > > This is used in a ProducerConfig class which extends AbstractConfig to > > get > > > access to some helper methods as well as the logic for tracking which > > > configs get accessed. > > > > > > Currently I have included static String variables for each of the > config > > > names in that class. However I actually think that is not very helpful > as > > > the javadoc for them doesn't give the constant value and requires > > > duplicating the documentation. To understand this point look at the > > javadoc > > > and note that the doc on the string is not the same as what we define > in > > > the ConfigDef. We could just have the javadoc for the config string be > > the > > > source of truth but it is actually pretty inconvient for that as it > > doesn't > > > show you the value of the constant, just the variable name (unless you > > > discover how to unhide it). That is fine for the clients, but for the > > > server would be very weird especially for non-java people. We could > > attempt > > > to duplicate documentation between the javadoc and the ConfigDef but > > given > > > our struggle to get well-documented config in a single place this seems > > > unwise. > > > > > > So I recommend we have a single source for documentation of these and > > that > > > that source be the website documentation on configuration that covers > > > clients and server and that that be generated off the config defs. The > > > javadoc on KafkaProducer will link to this table so it should be quite > > > convenient to discover. This makes things a little more typo prone, but > > > that should be easily caught by the key detection. This will also make > it > > > possible for us to retire configs in the future without causing compile > > > failures and add configs without having use of them break backwards > > > compatibility. This is useful during upgrades where you want to be > > > compatible with the old and new version so you can roll forwards and > > > backwards. > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > >
