Hi Greg,
Thanks for the response and sorry for the late reply.
> Currently the AK tests have a lot of calls to, for example, new
> SinkRecord(String topic, int partition, Schema keySchema,
> Object key, Schema valueSchema, Object value, long kafkaOffset)
> , a constructor without the original T/P/O values. I assumed that for
> backwards compatibility these constructors would still be usable in
> new runtimes. I imagine that there are also tests in downstream projects
> which make use of these constructors, whenever a Transform, Predicate,
> or Task is tested without a corresponding Converter. My question was
> about what values are chosen for the original T/P/O methods when these
> constructors are used after an upgrade to the latest connect-api.
That's a good question - since this should only primarily affect testing I
think it should be acceptable to simply use the topic, partition and
kafkaOffset values as the originalTopic, originalKafkaPartition
and originalKafkaOffset?
> If you inject the original T/P/O only before and after the chain, SMTs
> after an SMT which changes the original T/P/O will see whatever the
earlier
> SMT emitted. Is this intentional, or should this be avoided?
Hmm, this sounds like a misbehaving / badly implemented SMTs since there
doesn't seem to be any reasonable situation where an SMT should modify a
sink record's original topic / partition / offset data so I'm not in favor
of introducing checks and guards in the framework for this.
Another point that I've been pondering about is the one you raised about
the composability of Connect's plugin ecosystem and the special case
handling we're adding to sink connector plugins to work with certain
transformation plugin types. This really doesn't seem like a good precedent
to be setting / starting (since there don't seem to be any other such
"snowflake" inter-plugin interactions) in my opinion. The alternative of
completely managing this in the framework (and only exposing the virtual
coordinates to the sink tasks) doesn't seem too appealing either due to the
backward compatibility concerns while maintaining existing support and
functionality such as the possibility of implementing exactly-once
semantics, ability for tasks to rewind consumer offsets arbitrarily (which
might require the introduction of some form of persistence for the physical
<-> virtual coordinate mapping) etc. Unfortunately, even though this is a
long standing problem that all of us want to fix, I'm considering moving
this KIP into a dormant / inactive state since there doesn't seem to be a
design that satisfies all the general principles that the Kafka Connect
framework has striven to uphold.
Thanks,
Yash
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 3:31 AM Greg Harris <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid>
wrote:
> Yash,
>
> > 'm not sure I follow - are you asking about how the tests will be updated
> post this change or about how upgrades will look like for clusters in
> production?
>
> Currently the AK tests have a lot of calls to, for example, new
> SinkRecord(String topic, int partition, Schema keySchema, Object key,
> Schema valueSchema, Object value, long kafkaOffset), a constructor without
> the original T/P/O values. I assumed that for backwards compatibility these
> constructors would still be usable in new runtimes.
> I imagine that there are also tests in downstream projects which make use
> of these constructors, whenever a Transform, Predicate, or Task is tested
> without a corresponding Converter. My question was about what values are
> chosen for the original T/P/O methods when these constructors are used
> after an upgrade to the latest connect-api.
>
> > There shouldn't be any difference in behavior here - the framework will
> add
> the original T/P/O metadata to the record after the entire transformation
> chain has been applied and just before sending the record to the task for
> processing. The KIP doesn't propose that transformations themselves should
> also be able to retrieve original T/P/O information for a sink record.
>
> The KIP includes this: "Note that while the record's offset can't be
> modified via the standard SinkRecord::newRecord methods that SMTs are
> expected to use, SinkRecord has public constructors that would allow SMTs
> to return records with modified offsets. This is why the proposed changes
> include a new SinkRecord::originalKafkaOffset method as well."
> In order to use the new or old SinkRecord constructors outside of the
> newRecord methods, SMTs will downcast the previous record and may access
> the original T/P/O methods. They may or may not forward this to the next
> SMT, and they may or may not use it in their own computation.
> Since this is acknowledged as a possible implementation, I was just asking
> about when one SMT changes the original T/P/O, what should later SMTs and
> predicates see from the original T/P/O methods?
> If you inject the original T/P/O only before and after the chain, SMTs
> after an SMT which changes the original T/P/O will see whatever the earlier
> SMT emitted. Is this intentional, or should this be avoided?
> For existing SMTs use the SinkRecord constructor, either directly or via
> subclasses of ConnectRecord, they will drop the original T/P/O and fall
> back to the logic from question (1).
>
> > The rejected alternative basically says that we can't do a
> deterministic mapping from virtual coordinates to physical coordinates
> without doing a lot of book-keeping.
>
> I suppose there is a possible implementation of metadata book-keeping which
> provides a reasonable system of virtual coordinates, it just ended up
> equivalent to hydrating intermediate topics to compute a consistent record
> ordering. I wasn't convinced by calling it "book-keeping" since i've seen
> that phrase used to disregard much less complicated state management, and
> had to see exactly where that solution becomes unreasonable.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 6:30 AM Yash Mayya <yash.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > Thanks for the detailed review!
> >
> > > What is the expected state/behavior for SinkRecords
> > > which do not have original T/P/O information after the
> > > upgrade? Just browsing, it appears that tests make
> > > extensive use of the existing public SinkRecord
> > > constructors for both Transformations and Connectors.
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow - are you asking about how the tests will be
> updated
> > post this change or about how upgrades will look like for clusters in
> > production? For the latter, we won't have to worry about sink records
> > without original T/P/O information at all once a cluster is fully rolled
> > and we will make it (hopefully) abundantly clear that connectors need to
> > account for missing original T/P/O getter methods if they expect to be
> > deployed on older Connect runtimes.
> >
> > > What is the expected behavior for Transformation
> > > implementations which do not use the newRecord
> > > methods and instead use public SinkRecord constructors?
> > > The KIP mentions this as a justification for the
> > > originalKafkaOffset method, but if existing implementations
> > > are using the existing constructors, those constructors won't
> > > forward the original T/P/O information to later transforms or
> > > the task.
> >
> > There shouldn't be any difference in behavior here - the framework will
> add
> > the original T/P/O metadata to the record after the entire transformation
> > chain has been applied and just before sending the record to the task for
> > processing. The KIP doesn't propose that transformations themselves
> should
> > also be able to retrieve original T/P/O information for a sink record.
> >
> > > This reasoning and the KIP design seems to imply that the
> > > connector is better equipped to solve this problem than the
> > > framework, but the stated reasons are not convincing for me.
> >
> > This was added to the KIP by the original author, but I don't think the
> > intention was to imply that the connector is better equipped to solve
> this
> > problem than the framework. The intention is to provide complete
> > information to the connector ("physical" and "virtual coordinates"
> instead
> > of the currently incomplete "virtual coordinates" as you've termed it) so
> > that connectors can use the virtual coordinates for writing data to the
> > sink system and physical coordinates for offset reporting back to the
> > framework. The rejected alternative basically says that we can't do a
> > deterministic mapping from virtual coordinates to physical coordinates
> > without doing a lot of book-keeping.
> >
> > I agree with the rest of your analysis on the tradeoffs between the
> > proposed approach versus the seemingly more attractive approach of
> handling
> > everything purely in the framework and only exposing "virtual
> coordinates"
> > to the connectors. I think the biggest thorn here is maintaining backward
> > compatibility with the considerable ecosystem of existing connectors
> which
> > is something Connect has always been burdened by.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yash
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 6:54 AM Greg Harris <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Yash,
> > >
> > > I always use this issue as an example of a bug being caused by design
> > > rather than by implementation error, and once it's fixed I'll need to
> > find
> > > something else to talk about :)
> > > So glad to see this get fixed!
> > >
> > > I'll chime in to support some of the earlier discussions that seem to
> > have
> > > been resolved:
> > >
> > > 1. With respect to SinkRecord methods vs an overloaded put(): I agree
> > with
> > > the current design but I justify it a little bit differently than has
> > > already been discussed.
> > > If we were designing this interface on day 1 without backwards
> > > compatibility in mind, which design would make more sense? Or for a
> > > different framing: In the future when old runtimes and connectors are
> > > retired and the old interfaces are removed, which design is going to
> look
> > > more strange and unmotivated?
> > > Applied to this design decision, I would say that the original T/P/O
> are
> > > properties of a single SinkRecord and make sense as getters, and it
> would
> > > be strange to store them in an auxiliary map.
> > >
> > > 2. Following up this change with a compatibility library to make the
> > > interface easier to use is the right choice to make here. This change
> > > should be focused on correctness in allowing developers to fix the
> > > incompatibility and we can be concerned with coming up with a more
> > > ergonomic solution in the compatibility library.
> > > The API should be focused on generality, correctness, and performance
> > > because those cannot be worked-around after the fact. Connector
> > > implementations and/or libraries can be concerned with trading off some
> > > generality and/or performance for ease-of-use.
> > >
> > > 3. I think that the difference in behavior of the new open/close
> methods
> > as
> > > compared to the old methods is significant, and requires good
> > documentation
> > > to help connector developers avoid lazy and incorrect migrations. I am
> > > happy to have that addressed in code review after the KIP is approved.
> > >
> > > I had some questions:
> > >
> > > 4. What is the expected state/behavior for SinkRecords which do not
> have
> > > original T/P/O information after the upgrade? Just browsing, it appears
> > > that tests make extensive use of the existing public SinkRecord
> > > constructors for both Transformations and Connectors.
> > >
> > > 5. What is the expected behavior for Transformation implementations
> which
> > > do not use the newRecord methods and instead use public SinkRecord
> > > constructors? The KIP mentions this as a justification for the
> > > originalKafkaOffset method, but if existing implementations are using
> the
> > > existing constructors, those constructors won't forward the original
> > T/P/O
> > > information to later transforms or the task.
> > >
> > > For the last few points, I want to discuss this rejected alternative:
> > >
> > > > Address the offsets problem entirely within the framework, doing some
> > > kind of mapping from the transformed topic back to the original topic.
> > > > * This would only work in the cases where there’s no overlap between
> > the
> > > transformed topic names, but would break for the rest of the
> > > transformations (e.g. static transformation, topic = “a”).
> > > > * Even if we wanted to limit the support to those cases, it would
> > require
> > > considerable bookkeeping to add a validation to verify that the
> > > transformation chain adheres to that expectation (and fail fast if it
> > > doesn’t).
> > >
> > > 6. This reasoning and the KIP design seems to imply that the connector
> is
> > > better equipped to solve this problem than the framework, but the
> stated
> > > reasons are not convincing for me.
> > > * A static transformation still causes an offset collision in the
> > connector
> > > * The connector is not permitted to see the transformation chain to do
> > any
> > > fail-fast assertions
> > >
> > > Suppose we were to think of the records at the end of the
> transformation
> > > chain as being in "virtual partitions" with "virtual offsets".
> > > For example, with identity-routing SMTs, the virtual coordinates are
> > > exactly the same as the underlying physical coordinates. For 1-1
> renames,
> > > each virtual topic would be the renamed topic corresponding to the
> > > underlying topic. For fan-out from one topic to multiple virtual
> topics,
> > > virtual offsets would use the underlying kafka offsets with gaps for
> > > records going to other virtual partitions. Virtual topics with dropped
> > > records have similar gaps in the offsets.
> > > Currently, these virtual coordinates are passed into the connector via
> > > SinkTask::put, but SinkTask::open/close/preCommit and
> > > SinkTaskContext::assignment/offsets/pause/resume all use physical
> > > coordinates.
> > > This proposal patches put,open, and close to have both physical and
> > virtual
> > > coordinates, but leaves the other methods with physical coordinates.
> > After
> > > this proposal, connectors would be intentionally made aware of the
> > > distinction between physical and virtual coordinates, and manage their
> > own
> > > bookkeeping for the two systems.
> > >
> > > To avoid that connector logic, we could use virtual coordinates in all
> > > connector calls, never revealing that they are different from the
> > physical
> > > coordinates. There's a whole design shopping list that we'd need:
> > > * Renumbering mechanism for disambiguating and making virtual offsets
> > > monotonic in the case of topic/partition collisions
> > > * Data structure and strategy for translating virtual offsets back to
> > > physical offsets
> > > * New limits on SinkTaskContext::offsets() calls to prevent rewinding
> > > before the latest commit
> > > * Backwards compatibility and upgrade design
> > >
> > > 7. This alternative was very appealing to me, because the strength of a
> > > plugin framework is the composability of different components. Among a
> > > collection of N connectors and M transforms, it should ideally only
> take
> > > N + M work to understand how the components combine to build the whole.
> > > However, once you start adding special cases to some plugins to support
> > > interactions with others, the whole system can take N * M work to
> > > understand. From a complexity standpoint, it would be very good for the
> > > framework to solve this in a way which was connector-agnostic.
> > > The current design compromises the logical isolation of the plugins
> > > slightly, but they can collapse offsets very memory-efficiently, and
> > re-use
> > > the existing raw coordinate functions and keep everything else
> backwards
> > > compatible. After deriving all of the above, I think that's a
> reasonable
> > > tradeoff to make.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 10:17 AM Chris Egerton <chr...@aiven.io.invalid
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Yash,
> > > >
> > > > We'll probably want to make a few tweaks to the Javadocs for the new
> > > > methods (I'm imagining that notes on compatibility with older
> versions
> > > will
> > > > be required), but I believe what's proposed in the KIP is good enough
> > to
> > > > approve with the understanding that it may not exactly match what
> gets
> > > > implemented/merged.
> > > >
> > > > LGTM, thanks again for the KIP!
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 12:18 PM Yash Mayya <yash.ma...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Chris,
> > > > >
> > > > > > we might try to introduce a framework-level configuration
> > > > > > property to dictate which of the pre-transform and post-transform
> > > > > > topic partitions are used for the fallback call to the single-arg
> > > > > > variant if a task class has not overridden the multi-arg variant
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the explanation and I agree that this will be a tad bit
> > too
> > > > > convoluted. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Please do let me know if you'd like any further amendments to the
> > KIP!
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Yash
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 8:42 PM Chris Egerton
> > <chr...@aiven.io.invalid
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Yash,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the use case for pre-transform TPO coordinates (and topic
> > > > > partition
> > > > > > writers created/destroyed in close/open) tends to boil down to
> > > > > exactly-once
> > > > > > semantics, where it's desirable to preserve the guarantees that
> > Kafka
> > > > > > provides (every record has a unique TPO trio, and records are
> > ordered
> > > > by
> > > > > > offset within a topic partition).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's my understanding that this approach is utilized in several
> > > > > connectors
> > > > > > out there today, and it might break these connectors to start
> using
> > > the
> > > > > > post-transform topic partitions automatically in their open/close
> > > > > methods.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we want to get really fancy with this and try to obviate or at
> > > least
> > > > > > reduce the need for per-connector code changes, we might try to
> > > > > introduce a
> > > > > > framework-level configuration property to dictate which of the
> > > > > > pre-transform and post-transform topic partitions are used for
> the
> > > > > fallback
> > > > > > call to the single-arg variant if a task class has not overridden
> > the
> > > > > > multi-arg variant. But I think this is going a bit too far and
> > would
> > > > > prefer
> > > > > > to keep things simple(r) for now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 2:34 AM Yash Mayya <yash.ma...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Chris,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was actually envisioning something like `void
> > > > > > > > open(Collection<TopicPartition> originalPartitions,
> > > > > > > > Collection<TopicPartition> transformedPartitions)`
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ah okay, this does make a lot more sense. Sorry, I think I
> > > > > misunderstood
> > > > > > > you earlier. I do agree with you that this seems better than
> > > > splitting
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > off into two new sets of open / close methods from a complexity
> > > > > > standpoint.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Plus, if a connector is intentionally designed to use
> > > > > > > > pre-transformation topic partitions in its open/close
> > > > > > > > methods, wouldn't we just be trading one form of the
> > > > > > > > problem for another by making this switch?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On thinking about this a bit more, I'm not so convinced that we
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > > expose the pre-transform / original topic partitions in the new
> > > open
> > > > /
> > > > > > > close methods. The purpose of the open / close methods is to
> > allow
> > > > sink
> > > > > > > tasks to allocate and deallocate resources for each topic
> > partition
> > > > > > > assigned to the task and the purpose of topic-mutating SMTs is
> to
> > > > > > > essentially modify the source topic name from the point of view
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > sink
> > > > > > > connector. Why would a sink connector ever need to or want to
> > > > allocate
> > > > > > > resources for pre-transform topic partitions? Is the argument
> > here
> > > > that
> > > > > > > since we'll be exposing both the pre-transform and
> post-transform
> > > > topic
> > > > > > > partitions per record, we should also expose the same info via
> > > open /
> > > > > > close
> > > > > > > and allow sink connector implementations to disregard
> > > topic-mutating
> > > > > SMTs
> > > > > > > completely if they wanted to?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Either way, I've gone ahead and updated the KIP to reflect all
> of
> > > > > > > our previous discussion here since it had become quite
> outdated.
> > > I've
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > updated the KIP title from "Sink Connectors: Support
> > topic-mutating
> > > > > SMTs
> > > > > > > for async connectors (preCommit users)" to "Allow sink
> connectors
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > > used with topic-mutating SMTs" since the improvements to the
> > open /
> > > > > close
> > > > > > > mechanism doesn't pertain only to asynchronous sink connectors.
> > The
> > > > new
> > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > URL is:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-793%3A+Allow+sink+connectors+to+be+used+with+topic-mutating+SMTs
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Yash
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:39 PM Chris Egerton
> > > > <chr...@aiven.io.invalid
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Yash,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was actually envisioning something like `void
> > > > > > > > open(Collection<TopicPartition>
> > > > > > > > originalPartitions, Collection<TopicPartition>
> > > > > transformedPartitions)`,
> > > > > > > > since we already convert and transform each batch of records
> > that
> > > > we
> > > > > > poll
> > > > > > > > from the sink task's consumer en masse, meaning we could
> > discover
> > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > new transformed partitions in between consecutive calls to
> > > > > > SinkTask::put.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's also worth noting that we'll probably want to deprecate
> > the
> > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > open/close methods, at which point keeping one non-deprecated
> > > > variant
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > each seems more appealing and less complex than keeping two.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Honestly though, I think we're both on the same page enough
> > that
> > > I
> > > > > > > wouldn't
> > > > > > > > object to either approach. We've probably reached the
> > saturation
> > > > > point
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > ROI here and as long as we provide developers a way to get
> the
> > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > they need from the runtime and take care to add Javadocs and
> > > update
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > > docs page (possibly including the connector development
> > > > quickstart),
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > should be fine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At this point, it might be worth updating the KIP based on
> > recent
> > > > > > > > discussion so that others can see the latest proposal, and we
> > can
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > a look and make sure everything looks good enough before
> > opening
> > > a
> > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > thread.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Finally, I think you make a convincing case for a time-based
> > > > eviction
> > > > > > > > policy. I wasn't thinking about the fairly common SMT pattern
> > of
> > > > > > > deriving a
> > > > > > > > topic name from, e.g., a record field or header.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:42 AM Yash Mayya <
> > > yash.ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Chris,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Plus, if a connector is intentionally designed to
> > > > > > > > > > use pre-transformation topic partitions in its
> > > > > > > > > > open/close methods, wouldn't we just be trading
> > > > > > > > > > one form of the problem for another by making this
> > > > > > > > > > switch?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, this makes sense, and given that the KIP already
> > > > proposes a
> > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > sink connector implementations to distinguish between
> > > > pre-transform
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > post-transform topics per record, I think I'm convinced
> that
> > > > going
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > `open()` / `close()` methods is the right approach.
> However,
> > I
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > feel
> > > > > > > > > like having overloaded methods will make it a lot less
> > > > unintuitive
> > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > that the two sets of methods would be different in terms of
> > > when
> > > > > > > they're
> > > > > > > > > called and what arguments they are passed (also I'm
> presuming
> > > > that
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > overloaded methods you're prescribing will only have a
> single
> > > > > > > > > `TopicPartition` rather than a `Collection<TopicPartition>`
> > as
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > parameters). I guess my concern is largely around the fact
> > that
> > > > it
> > > > > > > won't
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > possible to distinguish between the overloaded methods' use
> > > cases
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > the method signatures. I agree that naming is going to be
> > > > difficult
> > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > > but I think that having two sets of `SinkTask::openXyz` /
> > > > > > > > > `SinkTask::closeXyz` methods will be less complicated to
> > > > understand
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > connector developer perspective (as compared to overloaded
> > > > methods
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > only differing documentation). Of your suggested options, I
> > > think
> > > > > > > > > `openPreTransform` / `openPostTransform` are the most
> > > > > comprehensible
> > > > > > > > ones.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > BTW, I wouldn't say that we can't make assumptions
> > > > > > > > > > about the relationships between pre- and
> > post-transformation
> > > > > > > > > > topic partitions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I meant that the framework wouldn't be able to
> > > deterministically
> > > > > know
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > to close a post-transform topic partition given that SMTs
> > could
> > > > use
> > > > > > > > > per-record data / metadata to manipulate the topic names as
> > and
> > > > how
> > > > > > > > > required (which supports the suggestion to use an eviction
> > > policy
> > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > mechanism to call SinkTask::close for post-transform topic
> > > > > > partitions).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We might utilize a policy that assumes a deterministic
> > > > > > > > > > mapping from the former to the latter, for example.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wouldn't this be making the assumption that SMTs only use
> the
> > > > topic
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > itself and no other data / metadata while computing the new
> > > topic
> > > > > > name?
> > > > > > > > Are
> > > > > > > > > you suggesting that since this assumption could work for a
> > > > majority
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > SMTs, it might be more efficient overall in terms of
> reducing
> > > the
> > > > > > > number
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > "false-positive" calls to `SinkTask::closePostTransform`
> (and
> > > > we'll
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > able to call `SinkTask::closePostTransform` immediately
> after
> > > > topic
> > > > > > > > > partitions are revoked from the consumer)? I was thinking
> > > > something
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > generic along the lines of a simple time based eviction
> > policy
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > wouldn't be making any assumptions regarding the SMT
> > > > > implementations.
> > > > > > > > > Either way, I do like your earlier suggestion of keeping
> this
> > > > logic
> > > > > > > > > internal and not painting ourselves into a corner by
> > promising
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > > particular behavior in the KIP.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Yash
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 1:08 AM Chris Egerton
> > > > > > <chr...@aiven.io.invalid
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Yash,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think the key difference between adding
> methods/overloads
> > > > > related
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > SinkTask::open/SinkTask::close and SinkTask::put is that
> > this
> > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > > > > auxiliary information that may or may not be useful to
> > > > connector
> > > > > > > > > > developers. It's actually critical for them to understand
> > the
> > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > between the two concepts here, even if they look very
> > > similar.
> > > > > And
> > > > > > > > yes, I
> > > > > > > > > > do believe that switching from pre-transform to
> > > post-transform
> > > > > > topic
> > > > > > > > > > partitions is too big a change in behavior here. Plus,
> if a
> > > > > > connector
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > intentionally designed to use pre-transformation topic
> > > > partitions
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > open/close methods, wouldn't we just be trading one form
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > another by making this switch?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > One possible alternative to overloading the existing
> > methods
> > > is
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > split
> > > > > > > > > > SinkTask::open into openOriginal (or possibly
> openPhysical
> > or
> > > > > > > > > > openPreTransform) and openTransformed (or openLogical or
> > > > > > > > > > openPostTransform), with a similar change for
> > > SinkTask::close.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > implementation for SinkTask::openOriginal can be to call
> > > > > > > > SinkTask::open,
> > > > > > > > > > and the same can go for SinkTask::close. However, I
> prefer
> > > > > > > overloading
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > existing methods since this alternative increases
> > complexity
> > > > and
> > > > > > none
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the names are very informative.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > BTW, I wouldn't say that we can't make assumptions about
> > the
> > > > > > > > > relationships
> > > > > > > > > > between pre- and post-transformation topic partitions. We
> > > might
> > > > > > > > utilize a
> > > > > > > > > > policy that assumes a deterministic mapping from the
> former
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > latter,
> > > > > > > > > > for example. The distinction I'd draw is that the
> > assumptions
> > > > we
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > and probably should favor some cases in terms of
> > performance
> > > > > (i.e.,
> > > > > > > > > > reducing the number of unnecessary calls to close/open
> > over a
> > > > > given
> > > > > > > > sink
> > > > > > > > > > task's lifetime), but should not lead to guaranteed
> > resource
> > > > > leaks
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > failure to obey API contract in any cases.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:54 AM Yash Mayya <
> > > > > yash.ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > especially if connectors are intentionally designed
> > > around
> > > > > > > > > > > > original topic partitions instead of transformed
> ones.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ha, that's a good point and reminds me of Hyrum's Law
> [1]
> > > :)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we have to provide connector developers with
> > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > way to differentiate between the two, but maybe
> > there's a
> > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > to do this that I haven't thought of yet
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I can't think of a better way to do this either; would
> > > > invoking
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > existing `SinkTask::open` and `SinkTask::close` methods
> > > with
> > > > > > > > > > post-transform
> > > > > > > > > > > topic partitions instead of pre-transform topic
> > partitions
> > > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > acceptable even in a minor / major AK release? I feel
> > like
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > approach of adding overloaded `SinkTask::open` /
> > > > > > `SinkTask::close`
> > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > to differentiate between pre-transform and
> post-transform
> > > > topic
> > > > > > > > > > partitions
> > > > > > > > > > > has similar pitfalls to the idea of the overloaded
> > > > > > `SinkTask::put`
> > > > > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > > > > we discarded earlier.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Either way, I'm glad that the general idea of a cache
> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > eviction policy for SinkTask::close seem reasonable;
> if
> > > > > > > > > > > > we decide to go this route, it might make sense for
> the
> > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > > to include an outline of one or more high-level
> > > strategies
> > > > > > > > > > > > we might take, but without promising any particular
> > > > behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > > beyond occasionally calling SinkTask::close for
> > > > > post-transform
> > > > > > > > > > > > topic partitions. I'm hoping that this logic can stay
> > > > > internal,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and by notpainting ourselves into a corner with the
> > KIP,
> > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > give ourselves leeway to tweak it in the future if
> > > > necessary
> > > > > > > > > > > > without filing another KIP or introducing a pluggable
> > > > > > interface.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, that's a good idea. Given the flexibility of
> > SMTs,
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > framework
> > > > > > > > > > > can't really make any assumptions around topic
> partitions
> > > > post
> > > > > > > > > > > transformation nor does it have any way to definitively
> > get
> > > > any
> > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > information from transformations which is why the idea
> > of a
> > > > > cache
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > eviction policy makes perfect sense!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1] - https://www.hyrumslaw.com/
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Yash
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 9:38 PM Chris Egerton
> > > > > > > <chr...@aiven.io.invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yash,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So it looks like with the current state of affairs,
> > > sink
> > > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > instantiate writers in the SinkTask::open method (and
> > > don't
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > lazy
> > > > > > > > > > > > instantiation in SinkTask::put that you mentioned)
> > might
> > > > fail
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > > > > > with topic/partition mutating SMTs even if they don't
> > do
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > asynchronous
> > > > > > > > > > > > processing?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yep, exactly 👍
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think about retaining just the existing
> > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > but changing when they're called in the Connect
> > runtime?
> > > > For
> > > > > > > > > instance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > instead of calling SinkTask::open after partition
> > > > assignment
> > > > > > > post a
> > > > > > > > > > > > consumer group rebalance, we could cache the
> currently
> > > > "seen"
> > > > > > > topic
> > > > > > > > > > > > partitions (post transformation) and before each call
> > to
> > > > > > > > > SinkTask::put
> > > > > > > > > > > > check whether there's any new "unseen" topic
> > partitions,
> > > > and
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > SinkTask::open (and also update the cache of course).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > IMO the issue here is that it's a drastic change in
> > > > behavior
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > invoking SinkTask::open and SinkTask::close with
> > > > > post-transform
> > > > > > > > topic
> > > > > > > > > > > > partitions instead of pre-transform, especially if
> > > > connectors
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > intentionally designed around original topic
> partitions
> > > > > instead
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > transformed ones. I think we have to provide
> connector
> > > > > > developers
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > way to differentiate between the two, but maybe
> > there's a
> > > > way
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > that I haven't thought of yet. Interested to hear
> your
> > > > > > thoughts.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Either way, I'm glad that the general idea of a cache
> > and
> > > > > > > eviction
> > > > > > > > > > policy
> > > > > > > > > > > > for SinkTask::close seem reasonable; if we decide to
> go
> > > > this
> > > > > > > route,
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > might make sense for the KIP to include an outline of
> > one
> > > > or
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > high-level strategies we might take, but without
> > > promising
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > behavior beyond occasionally calling SinkTask::close
> > for
> > > > > > > > > post-transform
> > > > > > > > > > > > topic partitions. I'm hoping that this logic can stay
> > > > > internal,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > painting ourselves into a corner with the KIP, we
> give
> > > > > > ourselves
> > > > > > > > > leeway
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > tweak it in the future if necessary without filing
> > > another
> > > > > KIP
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > introducing a pluggable interface.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 7:39 AM Yash Mayya <
> > > > > > yash.ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) That's a fair point; while I did scan everything
> > > > > publicly
> > > > > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > GitHub, you're right in that it won't cover all
> > > possible
> > > > > SMTs
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there. Thanks for the example use-case as well,
> I've
> > > > > updated
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the two new proposed methods.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) So it looks like with the current state of
> > affairs,
> > > > sink
> > > > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > instantiate writers in the SinkTask::open method
> (and
> > > > don't
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > lazy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > instantiation in SinkTask::put that you mentioned)
> > > might
> > > > > fail
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with topic/partition mutating SMTs even if they
> don't
> > > do
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > asynchronous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > processing? Since they could encounter records in
> > > > > > SinkTask::put
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > topics/partitions that they might not have created
> > > > writers
> > > > > > for.
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pointing this out, it's definitely another
> > > > incompatibility
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > called out and fixed. The overloaded method
> approach
> > is
> > > > > > > > > interesting,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > comes with the caveat of yet more new methods that
> > will
> > > > > need
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > implemented by existing connectors if they want to
> > make
> > > > use
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > functionality. What do you think about retaining
> just
> > > the
> > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but changing when they're called in the Connect
> > > runtime?
> > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > instance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > instead of calling SinkTask::open after partition
> > > > > assignment
> > > > > > > > post a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > consumer group rebalance, we could cache the
> > currently
> > > > > "seen"
> > > > > > > > topic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > partitions (post transformation) and before each
> call
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > SinkTask::put
> > > > > > > > > > > > > check whether there's any new "unseen" topic
> > > partitions,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SinkTask::open (and also update the cache of
> > course). I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would break the existing contract with sink tasks
> > where
> > > > > > > > > > SinkTask::open
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > expected to be called for a topic partition before
> > any
> > > > > > records
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > topic partition are sent via SinkTask::put? The
> > > > > > SinkTask::close
> > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lot trickier however, and would require some sort
> of
> > > > cache
> > > > > > > > eviction
> > > > > > > > > > > > policy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that would be deemed appropriate as you pointed out
> > > too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yash
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 11:27 PM Chris Egerton
> > > > > > > > > > <chr...@aiven.io.invalid
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yash,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've had some time to think on this KIP and I
> think
> > > I'm
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > agreement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not blocking it on an official compatibility
> > library
> > > or
> > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > "ack"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > API for sink records.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I only have two more thoughts:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Because it is possible to manipulate sink
> record
> > > > > > > partitions
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > offsets
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with the current API we provide for
> > transformations,
> > > I
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > methods should be added to the SinkRecord class
> to
> > > > expose
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > original
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > partition and offset, not just the original
> topic.
> > > The
> > > > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cognitive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > burden from these two methods is going to be
> > minimal
> > > > > > anyways;
> > > > > > > > > once
> > > > > > > > > > > > users
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand the difference between the transformed
> > > topic
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > original one, it's going to be trivial for them
> to
> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference applies for partitions and offsets.
> It's
> > > not
> > > > > > > enough
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > scan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > set of SMTs provided out of the box with Connect,
> > > ones
> > > > > > > > developed
> > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Confluent, or even everything available on
> GitHub,
> > > > since
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > closed-source projects out there that rely on
> this
> > > > > ability.
> > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > > > > potential
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use case could be re-routing partitions between
> > Kafka
> > > > and
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharded system.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We still have to address the SinkTask::open
> [1]
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > SinkTask::close
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > methods. If a connector writes to the external
> > system
> > > > > using
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > transformed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > topic partitions it reads from Kafka, then it's
> > > > possible
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > connector
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to lazily instantiate writers for topic
> partitions
> > as
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > encounters
> > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from records provided in SinkTask::put. However,
> > > > > connectors
> > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > need a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to de-allocate those writers (and the resources
> > used
> > > by
> > > > > > them)
> > > > > > > > > over
> > > > > > > > > > > > time,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which they can't do as easily. One possible
> > approach
> > > > here
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > overload
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SinkTask::open and SinkTask::close with variants
> > that
> > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > transformed and original topic partitions, and
> > > default
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > invoking
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing methods with just the original topic
> > > > partitions.
> > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have several options for how the Connect runtime
> > can
> > > > > invoke
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > methods,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but in general, an approach that guarantees that
> > > tasks
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > notified
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > transformed topic partitions in SinkTask::open
> > before
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > records
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > partition are given to it in SinkTask::put, and
> > > makes a
> > > > > > > > > best-effort
> > > > > > > > > > > > > attempt
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to close transformed topic partitions that appear
> > to
> > > no
> > > > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > based on some eviction policy, would probably be
> > > > > > sufficient.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://kafka.apache.org/33/javadoc/org/apache/kafka/connect/sink/SinkTask.html#open(java.util.Collection)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://kafka.apache.org/33/javadoc/org/apache/kafka/connect/sink/SinkTask.html#close(java.util.Collection)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 5:46 AM Yash Mayya <
> > > > > > > > yash.ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your inputs!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would provide a simple, clean interface for
> > > > > developers
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > determine
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which features are supported by the version
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > > Connect
> > > > > > > > > > > runtime
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that their plugin has been deployed onto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do like the idea of having such a public
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > library
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it would remove a lot of restrictions from
> > > framework
> > > > > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be widely adopted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we might consider adding an API to "ack" sink
> > > > records
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that this does seem like a more
> intuitive
> > > and
> > > > > > clean
> > > > > > > > > API,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concerned about the backward compatibility
> > headache
> > > > > we'd
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > imposing
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing sink connectors. Connector developers
> > will
> > > > > have
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > maintain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate ways of doing offset management if
> they
> > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but continue supporting older versions of Kafka
> > > > > Connect.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For now, I've reverted the KIP to the previous
> > > > > iteration
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > addition of a new `SinkRecord` method to obtain
> > the
> > > > > > > original
> > > > > > > > > > Kafka
> > > > > > > > > > > > > topic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-transformation. One thing to note is that
> > I've
> > > > > > removed
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obtaining the original Kafka partition after a
> > > > cursory
> > > > > > > search
> > > > > > > > > > > showed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use cases for partition modifying SMTs are
> > > primarily
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > source
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connector side.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 9:22 PM Chris Egerton
> > > > > > > > > > > <chr...@aiven.io.invalid
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have more comments I'd like to make on this
> > KIP
> > > > > when
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (sorry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the delay, Yash, and thanks for your
> > > > patience!),
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chime in and say that I'm also not sure about
> > > > > > overloading
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SinkTask::put.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > share the concerns about creating an
> intuitive,
> > > > > simple
> > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > raised. In addition, this approach doesn't
> seem
> > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sustainable--what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we do if we encounter another case in the
> > future
> > > > that
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > warrant a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar solution? We probably don't want to
> > > create
> > > > > > three,
> > > > > > > > > four,
> > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overloaded variants of the method, each of
> > which
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implemented by connector developers who want
> to
> > > > both
> > > > > > > > leverage
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > latest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and greatest connector APIs and maintain
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > connect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clusters running older versions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't been able to flesh this out into a
> > > design
> > > > > > worth
> > > > > > > > > > > > publishing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > own KIP yet, but one alternative I've pitched
> > to
> > > a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > generally positive interest has been to
> develop
> > > an
> > > > > > > official
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > library for Connect developers. This library
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > released
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maven artifact (separate from connect-api,
> > > > > > > connect-runtime,
> > > > > > > > > > etc.)
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide a simple, clean interface for
> > developers
> > > to
> > > > > > > > determine
> > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features are supported by the version of the
> > > > Connect
> > > > > > > > runtime
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plugin has been deployed onto. Under the
> hood,
> > > this
> > > > > > > library
> > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection to determine whether classes,
> > methods,
> > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > available,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the developer wouldn't have to do anything
> more
> > > > than
> > > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > > (for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > `Features.SINK_TASK_ERRANT_RECORD_REPORTER.enabled()`
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the lifetime of their connector/task
> whether
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the runtime.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One other high-level comment: this doesn't
> > > address
> > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consider adding an API to "ack" sink records.
> > > This
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SubmittedRecords class [1] (with some slight
> > > > tweaks)
> > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > hood
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > track the latest-acked offset for each topic
> > > > > partition.
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connector
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > developers won't be responsible for tracking
> > > > offsets
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sink
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tasks (eliminating issues with the accuracy
> of
> > > > > > > > > > > post-transformation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > T/P/O
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sink record information), and they'll only
> have
> > > to
> > > > > > notify
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Connect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > framework when a record has been successfully
> > > > > > dispatched
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > external
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system. This provides a cleaner, friendlier
> > API,
> > > > and
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fine-grained metrics like the ones proposed
> in
> > > > > KIP-767
> > > > > > > [2].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/9ab140d5419d735baae45aff56ffce7f5622744f/connect/runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/connect/runtime/SubmittedRecords.java
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-767%3A+Connect+Latency+Metrics
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 11:21 AM Yash Mayya <
> > > > > > > > > > yash.ma...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Randall,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been a while for this one but the
> more I
> > > > think
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > it,
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feel like the current approach with a new
> > > > > overloaded
> > > > > > > > > > > > > `SinkTask::put`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might not be optimal. We're trying to fix a
> > > > pretty
> > > > > > > corner
> > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > bug
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (usage of topic mutating SMTs with sink
> > > > connectors
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tracking) and I'm not sure that warrants a
> > > change
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > such a
> > > > > > > > > > > > central
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interface method. The new `SinkTask::put`
> > > method
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > somewhat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > odd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and it may not be very understandable for a
> > new
> > > > > > reader
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be the case for a public interface
> > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > Furthermore,
> > > > > > > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > elaborate documentation in place, I'm not
> > sure
> > > if
> > > > > > it'll
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > obvious
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > most people what the purpose of having
> these
> > > two
> > > > > > `put`
> > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they should be used by sink task
> > > implementations.
> > > > > > What
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 9:33 PM Yash Mayya
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > yash.ma...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Randall,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your valuable feedback
> so
> > > far!
> > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on our discussion above. Could you please
> > > take
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > look?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 12:40 AM Randall
> > > Hauch <
> > > > > > > > > > > > rha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 11:45 AM Yash
> > Mayya <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > yash.ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Randall,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks for elaborating. I think these
> > are
> > > > all
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > points
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > why the overloaded `SinkTask::put`
> > method
> > > > is a
> > > > > > > > cleaner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > solution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > public void
> put(Collection<SinkRecord>
> > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Map<SinkRecord,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > TopicPartition>
> updatedTopicPartitions)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > I think this should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > `public void
> put(Collection<SinkRecord>
> > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Map<SinkRecord,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > TopicPartition>
> > originalTopicPartitions)`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > instead because the sink records
> > > themselves
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > updated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > topic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > partitions (i.e. after all
> > transformations
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > applied)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > is proposing a way for the tasks to be
> > > able
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > access
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > original
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > topic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > partition (i.e. before transformations
> > > have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > applied).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Sounds good.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Of course, if the developer does not
> > > need
> > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > methods,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > easily have the older `put` method
> > simply
> > > > > > delegate
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > newer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > If the developer does not need
> separate
> > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > (i.e.
> > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > use this new addition), they can
> simply
> > > > > continue
> > > > > > > > > > > > implementing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > older `put` method right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Correct. We should update the JavaDoc of
> > > both
> > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> and in general how the two methods
> should
> > > are
> > > > > used
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> implemented. That can be part of the PR,
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wording.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Finally, this gives us a roadmap for
> > > > > > > *eventually*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> older
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > method, once the Connect runtime
> > versions
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > enough.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > I'm not sure we'd ever want to
> deprecate
> > > the
> > > > > > older
> > > > > > > > > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> sink
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > connector implementations do not do
> > their
> > > > own
> > > > > > > offset
> > > > > > > > > > > > tracking
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > asynchronous processing and will
> > probably
> > > > > never
> > > > > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > additional parameter `Map<SinkRecord,
> > > > > > > > TopicPartition>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > originalTopicPartitions` in the
> proposed
> > > new
> > > > > > `put`
> > > > > > > > > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> connectors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > can continue implementing only the
> > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > `SinkTask::put`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > will be called by the default
> > > implementation
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > newer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overloaded
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> `put`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the pre-commit methods use the same
> > > > > > > > > > `Map<TopicPartition,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > OffsetAndMetadata> currentOffsets`
> data
> > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > suggesting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> used.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > The data structure you're suggesting
> be
> > > used
> > > > > is
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > `Map<SinkRecord,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > TopicPartition>` which will map
> > > `SinkRecord`
> > > > > > > objects
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > original
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> topic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > partition of the corresponding
> > > > > `ConsumerRecord`
> > > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarify,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > a new data structure that will need to
> > be
> > > > > > managed
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> `WorkerSinkTask`.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Ah, you're right. Thanks for the
> > correction.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Randall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Yash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 1:20 AM Randall
> > > > Hauch <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Hi, Yash.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I'm not sure I quite understand why
> it
> > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > "easier"
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connector
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > developers to account for
> > implementing
> > > > two
> > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overloaded
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> `put`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > methods (assuming that they want
> to
> > > use
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > feature)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > try-catch block around
> `SinkRecord`
> > > > access
> > > > > > > > > methods?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Using a try-catch to try around an
> API
> > > > > method
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > *might*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > very unusual thing for most
> > developers.
> > > > > > > > > Unfortunately,
> > > > > > > > > > > > we've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > resort
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > to this atypical approach with
> Connect
> > > in
> > > > > > places
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > alternative. We seem to relying upon
> > > > pattern
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> us,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > not because it offers a better
> > > experience
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > Connector
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > developers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> IMO,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > there's a practical alternative that
> > > uses
> > > > > > normal
> > > > > > > > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practices
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > techniques, then we should use that
> > > > > > alternative.
> > > > > > > > > IIUC,
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> least
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > one practical alternative for this
> KIP
> > > > that
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> developers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > use the unusual try-catch to handle
> > the
> > > > case
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> found.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I also think having two `put`
> methods
> > is
> > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Connector
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> has to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > do different things for different
> > > Connect
> > > > > > > > runtimes,
> > > > > > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > methods is called by newer Connect
> > > > runtimes
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > other method is called by an older
> > > Connect
> > > > > > > > runtime.
> > > > > > > > > Of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > course,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > developer does not need separate
> > > methods,
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> older
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > `put` method simply delegate to the
> > > newer
> > > > > > > method.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Finally, this gives us a roadmap for
> > > > > > > *eventually*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> older
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > method, once the Connect runtime
> > > versions
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > enough.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I think the advantage of going with
> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > proposed approach in the KIP is
> that
> > > it
> > > > > > > wouldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > extra
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > book-keeping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > (the Map<SinkRecord,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > TopicPartition> in
> `WorkerSinkTask`
> > in
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > The connector does have to do some
> of
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > bookkeeping
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> track
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the topic partition offsets used in
> > the
> > > > > > > > `preCommit`,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> pre-commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > methods use the same
> > > `Map<TopicPartition,
> > > > > > > > > > > > OffsetAndMetadata>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > currentOffsets`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > data structure I'm suggesting be
> used.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > I hope that helps.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > Randall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 9:38 AM Yash
> > > > Mayya <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yash.ma...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi Randall,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks for reviewing the KIP!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > That latter logic can get quite
> > > ugly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I'm not sure I quite understand
> why
> > it
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > "easier"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> connector
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > developers to account for
> > implementing
> > > > two
> > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overloaded
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> `put`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > methods (assuming that they want
> to
> > > use
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > feature)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versus
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > try-catch block around
> `SinkRecord`
> > > > access
> > > > > > > > > methods?
> > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cases, a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > connector developer would need to
> > > write
> > > > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > ensure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > that their connector continues
> > working
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > older
> > > > > > > > > > > > Connect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > runtimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Furthermore, we would probably
> need
> > to
> > > > > > > carefully
> > > > > > > > > > > > document
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > implementation for the older `put`
> > > > method
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > look
> > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > connectors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > that want to use this new
> feature. I
> > > > think
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > advantage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > going
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > proposed approach in the KIP is
> that
> > > it
> > > > > > > wouldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > extra
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > book-keeping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > (the Map<SinkRecord,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > TopicPartition> in
> `WorkerSinkTask`
> > in
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > fact that the try-catch based
> logic
> > is
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > established
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> pattern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > through
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-610%3A+Error+Reporting+in+Sink+Connectors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > and other KIPs which added methods
> > to
> > > > > > > > source/sink
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connector/task
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > contexts.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Let me know if you still feel that
> > > > having
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > overloaded
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > put
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> method
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > cleaner solution and I'd be happy
> to
> > > > > > > reconsider!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Yash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 11:18 PM
> > > Randall
> > > > > > > Hauch <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rha...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi, Yash. Thanks for picking up
> > this
> > > > KIP
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > The KIP includes this rejected
> > > > > > alternative:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 4. Update SinkTask.put in any
> > way
> > > to
> > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > outside
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > SinkRecord (e.g. a Map or a
> > > derived
> > > > > > class)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Much more disruptive change
> > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > considerable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pros
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > One advantage about doing this
> is
> > > that
> > > > > > sink
> > > > > > > > > > > connector
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> implementations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > more easily implement two
> > different
> > > > > > > "put(...)"
> > > > > > > > > > > methods
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > a variety of runtimes, without
> > > having
> > > > to
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> around
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > newer SinkRecord access methods.
> > > That
> > > > > > latter
> > > > > > > > > logic
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > ugly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > For example, the existing `put`
> > > method
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > signature:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > public abstract void
> > > > > > > > put(Collection<SinkRecord>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > records);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > If we added an overloaded method
> > > that
> > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > map
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > topic+partition for each record
> > (and
> > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > absence
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> entry
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > having an unchanged topic and
> > > > > partition):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > public void
> > > put(Collection<SinkRecord>
> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Map<SinkRecord,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > TopicPartition>
> > > > updatedTopicPartitions)
> > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > put(records);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > then a `SinkTask` implementation
> > > that
> > > > > > wants
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > simply implement both methods:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > public void
> > > put(Collection<SinkRecord>
> > > > > > > > records)
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > // Running in an older runtime,
> so
> > > no
> > > > > > > tracking
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SMT-modified
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> topic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > names
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > or partitions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > put(records, Map.of());
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > public void
> > > put(Collection<SinkRecord>
> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Map<SinkRecord,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > TopicPartition>
> > > > updatedTopicPartitions)
> > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > // real logic here
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > This seems a lot easier than
> > having
> > > to
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > try-catch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > logic,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > allows sink connectors to
> utilize
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > older Connect runtimes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Randall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 7:03 AM
> > Yash
> > > > > Mayya
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yash.ma...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I would like to (re)start a
> new
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-793
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> (Kafka
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Connect) which proposes some
> > > > additions
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SinkRecord
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > interface
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > in order to support topic
> > mutating
> > > > > SMTs
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > sink
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > connectors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > own offset tracking.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Links:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > KIP:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=191336830
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Older discussion thread:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/00kcth6057jdcsyzgy1x8nb2s1cymy8h
> > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/rzqkm0q5y5v3vdjhg8wqppxbkw7nyopj
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Jira:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13431
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Yash
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
