michaeljmarshall commented on PR #19832: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19832#issuecomment-1477261603
> > This is a great initiative. Would you consider adding a section on multi-tenancy? I wrote a PR #19846 and then noticed this one. If we add it here, we can close my PR. > > @michaeljmarshall I want to, but I didn't understand the explanation provided in the PR, so I'm probably missing some context. Can you give some concrete examples? I agree that the language could be improved. My main motivation is in response of features like stateful functions, which are not properly multi-tenant. This is clear when the stateful functions rely on direct access to the bookkeeper and/or zookeeper cluster(s). Further, the only implementations of the [StateStore](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/82237d3684fe506bcb6426b3b23f413422e6e4fb/pulsar-functions/api-java/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/functions/api/StateStore.java) appear to be created without any thought to isolating tenants in such a way that one tenant cannot get/modify another tenant's function state. In my mind, we should not accept any features into Pulsar that are not designed to be multi-tenant unless there is a specific reason we cannot make it so and the community explicitly accepts that reasoning. Does that provide sufficient motivation? I am definitely open to different wording on the PIP template. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
