Hello, while we do not currently use the Java API, we are writing a C#/.net client (https://github.com/ntent-ad/kafka4net). FWIW, we also chose to keep the API simpler accepting just byte arrays. We did not want to impose even a simple interface onto users of the library, feeling that users will have their own serialization requirements (or not), and if desired, can write their own shim to handle serialization in the way they would like.
Cheers, Thunder -----Original Message----- From: Rajiv Kurian [mailto:ra...@signalfuse.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 10:22 AM To: users@kafka.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] adding the serializer api back to the new java producer It's not clear to me from your initial email what exactly can't be done with the raw accept bytes API. Serialization libraries should be share able outside of kafka. I honestly like the simplicity of the raw bytes API and feel like serialization should just remain outside of the base Kafka APIs. Any one who wants them bundled could then create a higher level API themselves. On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Re: pushing complexity of dealing with objects: we're talking about > just a call to a serialize method to convert the object to a byte > array right? Or is there more to it? (To me) that seems less > cumbersome than having to interact with parameterized types. Actually, > can you explain more clearly what you mean by <q>reason about what > type of data is being sent</q> in your original email? I have some > notion of what that means but it is a bit vague and you might have > meant something else. > > Thanks, > > Joel > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 09:15:19AM -0800, Jun Rao wrote: > > Joel, > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > Yes, the raw bytes interface is simpler than the Generic api. > > However, it just pushes the complexity of dealing with the objects > > to the > application. > > We also thought about the layered approach. However, this may > > confuse the users since there is no single entry point and it's not > > clear which > layer a > > user should be using. > > > > Jun > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > makes it hard to reason about what type of data is being sent to > Kafka > > > and > > > > also makes it hard to share an implementation of the serializer. > > > > For example, to support Avro, the serialization logic could be > > > > quite > involved > > > > since it might need to register the Avro schema in some remote > registry > > > and > > > > maintain a schema cache locally, etc. Without a serialization > > > > api, > it's > > > > impossible to share such an implementation so that people can > > > > easily > > > reuse. > > > > We sort of overlooked this implication during the initial > > > > discussion > of > > > the > > > > producer api. > > > > > > Thanks for bringing this up and the patch. My take on this is > > > that any reasoning about the data itself is more appropriately > > > handled outside of the core producer API. FWIW, I don't think this > > > was _overlooked_ during the initial discussion of the producer API > > > (especially since it was a significant change from the old producer). > > > IIRC we believed at the time that there is elegance and > > > flexibility in a simple API that deals with raw bytes. I think it > > > is more accurate to say that this is a reversal of opinion for > > > some (which is fine) but personally I'm still in the old camp :) > > > i.e., I really like the simplicity of the current 0.8.2 producer > > > API and find parameterized types/generics to be distracting and > > > annoying; and IMO any data-specific handling is better absorbed at > > > a higher-level than the core Kafka APIs - possibly by a (very thin) > > > wrapper producer library. > > > I don't quite see why it is difficult to share different wrapper > > > implementations; or even ser-de libraries for that matter that > > > people can invoke before sending to/reading from Kafka. > > > > > > That said I'm not opposed to the change - it's just that I prefer > > > what's currently there. So I'm +0 on the proposal. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Joel > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 05:58:50PM -0800, Jun Rao wrote: > > > > Hi, Everyone, > > > > > > > > I'd like to start a discussion on whether it makes sense to add > > > > the serializer api back to the new java producer. Currently, the > > > > new java producer takes a byte array for both the key and the > > > > value. While > this > > > api > > > > is simple, it pushes the serialization logic into the application. > This > > > > makes it hard to reason about what type of data is being sent to > Kafka > > > and > > > > also makes it hard to share an implementation of the serializer. > > > > For example, to support Avro, the serialization logic could be > > > > quite > involved > > > > since it might need to register the Avro schema in some remote > registry > > > and > > > > maintain a schema cache locally, etc. Without a serialization > > > > api, > it's > > > > impossible to share such an implementation so that people can > > > > easily > > > reuse. > > > > We sort of overlooked this implication during the initial > > > > discussion > of > > > the > > > > producer api. > > > > > > > > So, I'd like to propose an api change to the new producer by > > > > adding > back > > > > the serializer api similar to what we had in the old producer. > Specially, > > > > the proposed api changes are the following. > > > > > > > > First, we change KafkaProducer to take generic types K and V for > > > > the > key > > > > and the value, respectively. > > > > > > > > public class KafkaProducer<K,V> implements Producer<K,V> { > > > > > > > > public Future<RecordMetadata> send(ProducerRecord<K,V> > > > > record, > > > Callback > > > > callback); > > > > > > > > public Future<RecordMetadata> send(ProducerRecord<K,V> > > > > record); } > > > > > > > > Second, we add two new configs, one for the key serializer and > another > > > for > > > > the value serializer. Both serializers will default to the byte > > > > array implementation. > > > > > > > > public class ProducerConfig extends AbstractConfig { > > > > > > > > .define(KEY_SERIALIZER_CLASS_CONFIG, Type.CLASS, > > > > "org.apache.kafka.clients.producer.ByteArraySerializer", > Importance.HIGH, > > > > KEY_SERIALIZER_CLASS_DOC) > > > > .define(VALUE_SERIALIZER_CLASS_CONFIG, Type.CLASS, > > > > "org.apache.kafka.clients.producer.ByteArraySerializer", > Importance.HIGH, > > > > VALUE_SERIALIZER_CLASS_DOC); > > > > } > > > > > > > > Both serializers will implement the following interface. > > > > > > > > public interface Serializer<T> extends Configurable { > > > > public byte[] serialize(String topic, T data, boolean > > > > isKey); > > > > > > > > public void close(); > > > > } > > > > > > > > This is more or less the same as what's in the old producer. The > slight > > > > differences are (1) the serializer now only requires a > > > > parameter-less constructor; (2) the serializer has a configure() > > > > and a close() > method > > > for > > > > initialization and cleanup, respectively; (3) the serialize() > > > > method additionally takes the topic and an isKey indicator, both > > > > of which > are > > > > useful for things like schema registration. > > > > > > > > The detailed changes are included in KAFKA-1797. For > > > > completeness, I > also > > > > made the corresponding changes for the new java consumer api as well. > > > > > > > > Note that the proposed api changes are incompatible with what's > > > > in > the > > > > 0.8.2 branch. However, if those api changes are beneficial, it's > probably > > > > better to include them now in the 0.8.2 release, rather than later. > > > > > > > > I'd like to discuss mainly two things in this thread. > > > > 1. Do people feel that the proposed api changes are reasonable? > > > > 2. Are there any concerns of including the api changes in the > > > > 0.8.2 > final > > > > release? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > > >
