Hi Lianet, Thank you for your feedback!
Yes, the current KIP focuses solely on the client upgrade for 4.x. I have updated the title accordingly and also included the KS upgrade link in the KIP. Thanks again! Best regards, Kuan-Po On 2025/02/19 16:59:25 "Lianet M." wrote: > Hello all, sorry a bit late, just minor comments on this one: > > - Should we clarify in the title or at the beginning of the KIP that it is > proposing a client upgrade path for 4.x? The broader considerations for > upgrades discussed in this thread will be tackled separately (seems we all > agree). > > - The KS upgrade path seems to be the tricky one, and all that the user > needs to consider to successfully follow the provided path for KS is not > clear in the KIP, but it's all well explained on the KS upgrade notes for > 3.9, should we add a ref to that? > https://kafka.apache.org/39/documentation/streams/upgrade-guide > > Thanks Kuan Po! > > Lianet > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:22 AM Kuan Po Tseng <brandb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > If there are no other opinions, I would like to start a vote tomorrow, > > thank you! > > > > Best, > > Kuan Po > > > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 1:51 AM Kuan Po Tseng <brandb...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Based on our discussion, I added a section on choosing the appropriate > > > bridge version from an API compatibility perspective for upgrading to > > Kafka > > > 4.0. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Thank you! > > > > > > Best, > > > Kuan-Po > > > > > > On 2025/02/07 03:34:46 Kuan Po Tseng wrote: > > > > Hi Chia-Ping, > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delayed response. I’ve checked all relevant JIRAs using > > > the following Jira Query Language: > > > > > > > > project = KAFKA AND status in (Resolved, Closed) AND fixVersion = 4.0.0 > > > AND text ~ "Remove" order by updated DESC > > > > > > > > Based on this, I checked the JIRAs related to removing deprecated > > > methods in client modules. The minimum backward-compatible client > > versions > > > for client 4.0 are as follows: > > > > - Producer: 3.3.0 > > > > Reason: Partitioner#onNewBatch was deprecated in 3.3.0, and was > > > removed by https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-18295 > > > > - Consumer: 2.4.0 > > > > Reason: Consumer#committed was deprecated in 2.4.0, and was removed > > by > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-17451 > > > > - Admin: 3.3.0 > > > > Reason: ListConsumerGroupOffsetsOptions was deprecated in 3.3.0 and > > > was removed by https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-18291 > > > > > > > > You can find a list of all related JIRAs and pull requests in this > > > Google Sheet: > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZWNRk1rjWptjpGM2UtT0Q3lDULhrqkP_UfHr9roQW3M/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > There are also some public methods removed in 4.0, such as: > > > > - KafkaFuture#Function, KafkaFuture#thenApply > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-17903 > > > > - JmxReported(String) > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-18077 > > > > , but I'm uncertain about how we should handle these. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Kuan-Po > > > > > > > > On 2025/02/06 19:08:49 Chia-Ping Tsai wrote: > > > > > hi Kuan-Po > > > > > > > > > > any update? Now that an upgrade path for bridge versions exists, we > > > can introduce additional "conditions" to assist users in selecting the > > > "best" bridge version. For example, we can provide guidance on which > > bridge > > > versions offer backward compatibility with Kafka 4.0 client or are > > > compatible with Kafka 4.0 server. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Chia-Ping > > > > > > > > > > On 2025/01/22 04:48:36 Chia-Ping Tsai wrote: > > > > > > > - If we support 2.0+ to 4.0 client/KS upgrade it's simpler, but > > of > > > course brokers cannot be 4.0 yet -- but I guess this would be something > > > natural? Given that the clients would be on 2.0, brokers cannot be 4.0 > > yet, > > > or clients would have crashed already... Thus, I think I slightly prefer > > > this one. > > > > > > > > > > > > Using a major version as a bridge is a viable approach. We can > > > emphasize the limitations of this method to guide users in selecting the > > > most suitable bridge version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > For KS, from an API compatibility POV, upgrading from anything > > > older than 3.6 might not work any longer (for DSL users; of course, > > > depending on what APIs they are using). And for PAPI, the old API was > > > removed too, so only if the new one is use (introduced in 2.7) a seamless > > > upgrade would work smoothly. > > > > > > > > > > > > You make a valid point. The previous discussion overlooked the APIs > > > that were removed in version 4.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > We could also emphasize the BC advantages. As an example, users > > have > > > the option of using version 2.7 as a bridge and subsequently upgrade > > > without code alterations or recompilation. Of course, we need to check > > the > > > version of other PAPI removal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Chia-Ping > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> 於 2025年1月22日 凌晨2:55 寫道： > > > > > > > For KS, from an API compatibility POV, upgrading from anything > > > older than 3.6 might not work any longer (for DSL users; of course, > > > depending on what APIs they are using). And for PAPI, the old API was > > > removed too, so only if the new one is use (introduced in 2.7) a seamless > > > upgrade would work smoothly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
