Thanks Arjun. +1 On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:58 AM Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote:
> The new REST API for logger management looks great to me. > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Arjun Satish <arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Bumping this thread. > > > > If there are no further comments, please add your votes here: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg100313.html > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Arjun > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:22 PM Arjun Satish <arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Thanks a lot, Jason! Answers inline. I'll also modify the kip to make > > > these clear. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:01 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Arjun, > > >> > > >> The updated KIP looks good. Just a couple questions: > > >> > > >> 1. Is the /admin endpoint on the normal listener by default? If not, > is > > >> there a way to have it use the same listener? > > >> > > > > > > Uses the normal listener by default. > > > > > > > > >> 2. Changes to logging configuration are not intended to be > persistent, is > > >> that right? Also, I assume changes only apply to the worker that > received > > >> the request? > > >> > > > > > > Changes will not be persistent and only apply to the worker that > received > > > the request. > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > >> Jason > > >> > > >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:25 AM Arjun Satish <arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > OK. I didn't realize the plan was to deprecate and remove the JMX > > >> endpoint. > > >> > KIP-412 says brokers will continue to expose the JMX API. JMX was > > >> selected > > >> > so all components could follow the brokers. In light of this, I > think we > > >> > should simply aim for semantic equivalency across the different API > for > > >> > this functionality. > > >> > > > >> > REST is convenient for Connect. We can modify the KIP to have a > /admin > > >> > endpoint, and /admin/loggers specifically for getting/setting the > log > > >> > levels of different loggers. The /admin/loggers will only impact > loggers > > >> > running in the specific worker we target requests to, and upon > > >> restarting > > >> > the worker, these loggers will reset back to their original level. > > >> > > > >> > Since configuring the rest server already has multiple config keys, > I am > > >> > inclined to bundle this /admin endpoint on to the same listener, and > > >> > provide a single new config key that enables or disables the entire > > >> /admin > > >> > endpoint. This keeps the initial approach simple and doesn't require > > >> users > > >> > to configure/discover a new endpoint. > > >> > > > >> > If this works with you all, I can update the KIP. Please let me know > > >> what > > >> > you think. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks everyone. > > >> > > > >> > Best, > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:14 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019, at 14:03, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > >> > > > Hi Arjun, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > From a high level, I feel like we are making light of the JMX > api > > >> > because > > >> > > > it's convenient and the broker already has it. Personally I > would > > >> take > > >> > > the > > >> > > > broker out of the picture. The JMX endpoint is not something we > were > > >> > > happy > > >> > > > with, hence KIP-412. Ultimately I think we will deprecate and > > >> remove it > > >> > > and > > >> > > > there's no point trying to standardize on a deprecated > mechanism. > > >> > > Thinking > > >> > > > just about connect, we already have an HTTP endpoint. The > default > > >> > > position > > >> > > > should be to add new APIs to it rather than introducing other > > >> > mechanisms. > > >> > > > The fewer ways you have to interact with a system, the better, > > >> right? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I think the main argument against a REST endpoint is basically > that > > >> > > > adjusting log levels is an administrative operation and connect > is > > >> > > lacking > > >> > > > an authorization framework to enforce administrative access. The > > >> same > > >> > > > argument applies to JMX, but it has the benefit that you can > specify > > >> > > > different credentials and it is easier to isolate since it is > > >> running > > >> > on > > >> > > a > > >> > > > separate port. As you suggested, I think the same benefits > could be > > >> > > > achieved by having a separate /admin endpoint which is exposed > > >> (perhaps > > >> > > > optionally) on another listener. This is a pretty standard > pattern. > > >> If > > >> > > > memory serves, dropwizard has something like this out of the > box. We > > >> > > should > > >> > > > think hard whether there are additional administrative > capabilities > > >> > that > > >> > > we > > >> > > > would ultimately need. The answer is probably yes, so unless we > > >> want to > > >> > > > double down on JMX, it might be worth thinking through the > > >> implications > > >> > > of > > >> > > > an admin endpoint now so that we're not left with odd > compatibility > > >> > > baggage > > >> > > > in the future. > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi Jason, > > >> > > > > >> > > I agree... I think Connect needs a REST admin API. There will > > >> probably > > >> > be > > >> > > a lot of other stuff that we'll want to add to it. > > >> > > > > >> > > best, > > >> > > Colin > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > Jason > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:38 PM Arjun Satish < > > >> arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Jason, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for your comments! > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I understand the usability issues with JMX that you mention. > But > > >> it > > >> > was > > >> > > > > chosen for the following reasons: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 1. Cross-cutting functionality across different components > (Kafka > > >> > > brokers, > > >> > > > > Connect workers and even with Streams jobs). If we go down the > > >> REST > > >> > > route, > > >> > > > > then brokers don't get this feature. > > >> > > > > 2. Adding this to existing REST servers adds the > whole-or-nothing > > >> > > problem. > > >> > > > > It's hard to disable an endpoint if the functionality is not > > >> desired > > >> > or > > >> > > > > needs to be protected from users (Connect doesn't have ACLs > which > > >> > makes > > >> > > > > this even harder to manage). Adding endpoints to different > > >> listeners > > >> > > makes > > >> > > > > configuring Connect harder (and it's already a hard problem > as it > > >> > is). > > >> > > A > > >> > > > > lot of the existing functionality there is driven around the > > >> > connector > > >> > > data > > >> > > > > model (connectors, plugins, their statuses and so on). Adding > an > > >> > > '/admin' > > >> > > > > endpoint may be a way to go, but that has tremendous > implications > > >> (we > > >> > > are > > >> > > > > effectively adding an administration endpoint similar to the > admin > > >> > one > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > brokers), and probably requires a KIP of its own with > discussions > > >> > > catered > > >> > > > > around just that. > > >> > > > > 3. JMX is currently AK's default way to report metrics and > perform > > >> > > other > > >> > > > > operations. Changing log levels is typically a system > level/admin > > >> > > > > operation, and fits better there, instead of REST APIs (which > is > > >> more > > >> > > user > > >> > > > > facing). > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Having said that, I'm happy to consider alternatives. JMX > seemed > > >> to > > >> > be > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > lowest hanging fruit. But if there are better ideas, we can > > >> consider > > >> > > them. > > >> > > > > At the end of the day, when we download and run Kafka, there > > >> should > > >> > be > > >> > > one > > >> > > > > way to achieve the same functionality among its components. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Finally, I hope I didn't convey that we are > reverting/changing the > > >> > > changes > > >> > > > > made in KIP-412. The proposed changes would be an addition to > it. > > >> It > > >> > > will > > >> > > > > give brokers multiple ways of changing log levels. and there > is > > >> > still a > > >> > > > > consistent way of achieving cross component goals of the KIP. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:12 PM Jason Gustafson < > > >> ja...@confluent.io> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Let me elaborate a little bit. We made the decision early > on for > > >> > > Connect > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > use HTTP instead of Kafka's custom RPC protocol. In > exchange for > > >> > > losing > > >> > > > > > some hygienic consistency with Kafka, we took easier > integration > > >> > with > > >> > > > > > management tools. The scope of the connect REST APIs is > really > > >> > > managing > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > connect cluster. It has endpoints for creating connectors, > > >> changing > > >> > > > > > configs, seeing their health, etc. Doesn't debugging fit in > with > > >> > > that? I > > >> > > > > am > > >> > > > > > not sure I see why we would treat this as an exceptional > case. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I personally see JMX as a necessary evil in Kafka because > most > > >> > > metrics > > >> > > > > > agents have native support. But it is particularly painful > when > > >> it > > >> > > comes > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > use as an RPC mechanism. This was the central motivation > behind > > >> > > KIP-412, > > >> > > > > > which makes it very odd to see a new proposal which suggests > > >> > > > > standardizing > > >> > > > > > on JMX for log level adjustment. I actually see this as > > >> something > > >> > > we'd > > >> > > > > want > > >> > > > > > to eventually turn off in Kafka. Now that we have a proper > API > > >> with > > >> > > > > support > > >> > > > > > in the AdminClient, we can deprecate and eventually remove > the > > >> JMX > > >> > > > > > endpoint. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > Jason > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:49 AM Jason Gustafson < > > >> > ja...@confluent.io > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Arjun, > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. Do we really need a JMX-based API? Is > > >> there > > >> > > > > literally > > >> > > > > > > anyone in the world that wants to use JMX if they don't > have > > >> to? > > >> > I > > >> > > > > > thought > > >> > > > > > > one of the major motivations of KIP-412 was how much of a > pain > > >> > JMX > > >> > > is. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > > Jason > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 5:28 PM Arjun Satish < > > >> > > arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thanks, Konstantine. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Updated the KIP with the restrictions around log4j and > added > > >> > > > > references > > >> > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > >> similar KIPs. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Best, > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 3:20 PM Konstantine Karantasis < > > >> > > > > > >> konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks Arjun, the example is useful! > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > My point when I mentioned the restrictions around > log4j is > > >> > that > > >> > > this > > >> > > > > > is > > >> > > > > > >> > information is significant and IMO needs to be > included in > > >> the > > >> > > KIP. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > Speaking of its relevance to KIP-412, I think a > reference > > >> > would > > >> > > be > > >> > > > > > nice > > >> > > > > > >> > too. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > Konstantine > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM Arjun Satish < > > >> > > > > arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Hey Konstantine, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks for the feedback. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > re: the use of log4j, yes, the proposed changes will > only > > >> > > work if > > >> > > > > > >> log4j > > >> > > > > > >> > is > > >> > > > > > >> > > available in runtime. We will not add the mBean if > log4j > > >> is > > >> > > not > > >> > > > > > >> available > > >> > > > > > >> > > in classpath. If we change from log4j 1 to 2, that > would > > >> > > involve > > >> > > > > > >> another > > >> > > > > > >> > > KIP, and it would need to update the changes > proposed in > > >> > this > > >> > > KIP > > >> > > > > > and > > >> > > > > > >> > > others (KIP-412, for instance). > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > re: use of Object types, I've changed it from > Boolean to > > >> the > > >> > > > > > primitive > > >> > > > > > >> > type > > >> > > > > > >> > > for setLogLevel. We are changing the signature of > the old > > >> > > method > > >> > > > > > this > > >> > > > > > >> > way, > > >> > > > > > >> > > but since it never returned null, this should be > fine. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > re: example usage, I've added some screenshot on how > this > > >> > > feature > > >> > > > > > >> would > > >> > > > > > >> > be > > >> > > > > > >> > > used with jconsole. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Hope this works! > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks very much, > > >> > > > > > >> > > Arjun > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:42 AM Konstantine > Karantasis < > > >> > > > > > >> > > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > And one thing I forgot is also related to Chris's > > >> comment > > >> > > > > above. I > > >> > > > > > >> > agree > > >> > > > > > >> > > > that an example on how a user is expected to set > the > > >> log > > >> > > level > > >> > > > > > (for > > >> > > > > > >> > > > instance to DEBUG) would be nice, even if it's > showing > > >> > only > > >> > > one > > >> > > > > > out > > >> > > > > > >> of > > >> > > > > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > many possible ways to achieve that. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > - Konstantine > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:38 PM Konstantine > Karantasis > > >> < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks Arjun for tackling the need to support > this > > >> very > > >> > > useful > > >> > > > > > >> > feature. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > One thing I noticed while reading the KIP is > that I > > >> > would > > >> > > have > > >> > > > > > >> loved > > >> > > > > > >> > to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > see more info regarding how this proposal > depends on > > >> the > > >> > > > > > >> underlying > > >> > > > > > >> > > > logging > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > APIs and implementations. For instance, my > > >> understanding > > >> > > is > > >> > > > > that > > >> > > > > > >> > slf4j > > >> > > > > > >> > > > can > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > not be leveraged and that the logging framework > > >> needs to > > >> > > be > > >> > > > > > >> pegged to > > >> > > > > > >> > > > log4j > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > explicitly (or another logging implementation). > > >> Correct > > >> > > me if > > >> > > > > > I'm > > >> > > > > > >> > > wrong, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > but if such a dependency is introduced I believe > it's > > >> > > worth > > >> > > > > > >> > mentioning. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Additionally, if the above is correct, there are > > >> > > differences > > >> > > > > in > > >> > > > > > >> > log4j's > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > APIs between version 1 and version 2. In version > 2, > > >> > > > > > >> Logger#setLevel > > >> > > > > > >> > > > method > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > has been removed from the Logger interface and in > > >> order > > >> > > to set > > >> > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > >> > log > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > level programmatically the Configurator class > needs > > >> to > > >> > > used, > > >> > > > > > >> which as > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > stated in the FAQ ( > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/faq.html#reconfig_level_from_code > > >> > > > > > >> > > ) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > it's not part of log4j2's public API. Is this a > > >> > concern? I > > >> > > > > > believe > > >> > > > > > >> > that > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > even if these are implementation specific > details for > > >> > the > > >> > > > > > wrappers > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > introduced by this KIP (which to a certain extent > > >> they > > >> > > are), a > > >> > > > > > >> > mention > > >> > > > > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > the KIP text and a few references would be > useful to > > >> > > > > understand > > >> > > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > changes > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > and the dependencies introduced by this proposal. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > And a few minor comments: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > - Is there any specific reason that object types > were > > >> > > > > preferred > > >> > > > > > in > > >> > > > > > >> > the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > proposed interface compared to primitive types? > My > > >> > > > > understanding > > >> > > > > > >> is > > >> > > > > > >> > > that > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > `null` is not expected as a return value. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > - Related to the above, I think it'd be nice for > the > > >> > > javadoc > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > >> > mention > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > when a parameter is not expected to be `null` > with an > > >> > > > > > appropriate > > >> > > > > > >> > > comment > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > (e.g. foo bar etc; may not be null) > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Cheers, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Konstantine > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 9:34 AM Cyrus Vafadari < > > >> > > > > > cy...@confluent.io > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> This looks like a useful feature, the strategy > makes > > >> > > sense, > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > > >> > > KIP > > >> > > > > > >> > > > is > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> thorough and nicely written. Thanks! > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> Cyrus > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 12:40 PM Chris Egerton < > > >> > > > > > chr...@confluent.io > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks Arjun! Looks good to me. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:33 PM Arjun Satish < > > >> > > > > > >> > > arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for the feedback, Chris! > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Yes, the example is pretty much how Connect > will > > >> > use > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > new > > >> > > > > > >> > > > feature. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Tweaked the section to make this more clear. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > Best, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:52 AM Chris > Egerton < > > >> > > > > > >> > > chr...@confluent.io > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Hi Arjun, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > This looks great. The changes to public > > >> interface > > >> > > are > > >> > > > > > >> pretty > > >> > > > > > >> > > small > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> and > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > moving the Log4jController class into the > > >> clients > > >> > > > > package > > >> > > > > > >> > seems > > >> > > > > > >> > > > like > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > right way to go. One question I have--it > looks > > >> > > like the > > >> > > > > > >> > purpose > > >> > > > > > >> > > of > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> this > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > KIP > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > is to enable dynamic setting of log > levels in > > >> the > > >> > > > > Connect > > >> > > > > > >> > > > framework, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > but > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > it's not clear how the Connect framework > will > > >> use > > >> > > that > > >> > > > > > new > > >> > > > > > >> > > > utility. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> Is > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > "Example Usage" section (which involves > > >> invoking > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > >> utility > > >> > > > > > >> > > with > > >> > > > > > >> > > > a > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > namespace of "kafka.connect") actually > meant > > >> to > > >> > be > > >> > > part > > >> > > > > > of > > >> > > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> proposed > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > changes to public interface? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Cheers, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Chris > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:03 PM Arjun > Satish > > >> < > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Hi everyone. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > I'd like to propose the following KIP to > > >> > > implement > > >> > > > > > >> changing > > >> > > > > > >> > > log > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > levels > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > on > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > the fly in Connect workers: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-495%3A+Dynamically+Adjust+Log+Levels+in+Connect > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Would like to hear your thoughts on > this. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Thanks very much, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Arjun > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >
