Hello guys, I want to bump this vote thread manually. Thanks for your attention.
Best, TengYao Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoess...@gmail.com> 於 2025年3月24日 週一 上午3:58寫道： > Thanks TengYao, > > I note that the KIP's scope has shrunk a bit, and the goal now is only to > upgrade slf4j to make it easy for users to replace log4j2 with another > slf4j binding, but Kafka will only ship with log4j2 and not alternatives, > so people who want to use something else will have to bring their own jars. > > +1 (non-binding, not a committer) for that plan > > Den søn. 23. mar. 2025 kl. 12.13 skrev TengYao Chi <kiting...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi everyone > > > > I have updated the content of KIP. > > I want to highlight that although we set log4j2 as the default > server-side > > logging framework we couldn't change its scope to implementation in > > `build.gradle`. > > This will lead the downstream projects to encounter dependency conflicts. > > > > Please take a look and share your feedback. > > > > Best, > > TengYao > > > > TengYao Chi <kiting...@gmail.com> 於 2025年3月23日 週日 下午2:23寫道： > > > > > Hi Stig > > > > > > Sorry for the late reply, and thanks for your question. 😀 > > > > > > The title "Upgrade slf4j to 2.x" represents the core change enabling > > > improved logging backend selection. > > > The fundamental change is the SLF4J upgrade, which brings the new > > provider > > > selection mechanism (`-Dslf4j.provider`) as a key feature. > > > Given that, I think the current title reflects the primary technical > > > change, while the KIP details explain the resulting benefits and > > > implementation approach. > > > > > > Best, > > > TengYao > > > > > > > > > Stig Rohde Døssing <stigdoess...@gmail.com> 於 2025年3月21日 週五 下午11:46寫道： > > > > > >> The title of the KIP seems a little odd, because if I understand > > >> correctly, > > >> the main change you want to make is to bundle multiple logging > backends > > >> with Kafka and make them selectable via a system property, and > upgrading > > >> sfl4j is a means to achieve that, not the goal itself? > > >> > > >> Den fre. 21. mar. 2025 kl. 12.18 skrev Chia-Ping Tsai < > > chia7...@gmail.com > > >> >: > > >> > > >> > hi Teng > > >> > > > >> > > The KIP will document that log4j2 is the only officially supported > > >> > server-side logging framework, and we will expose its > configuration > > >> file > > >> > to > > >> > users. > > >> > > > >> > on the server-side, we should keep current scope - compileOnly and > > >> > releaseOnly - Otherwise, downstream projects could encounter > > dependency > > >> > conflicts [0] > > >> > > > >> > > I will revise the motivation section of the KIP to emphasize that > > the > > >> > > > >> > Please include the following description. > > >> > > > >> > "The rationale for this KIP is that upgrading SLF4J necessitates > > >> > corresponding provider upgrades, which constitutes a breaking > change." > > >> > > > >> > Also, we must upgrade the Log4j2 dependency based on SLF4J 2 (i.e., > > >> > log4j-slf4j-impl to log4j-slf4j2-impl) in 5.0 if we upgrade to > slf4j2 > > >> > > > >> > [0] > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/17373#issuecomment-2577813317 > > >> > > > >> > Best, > > >> > > > >> > Chia-Ping > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > TengYao Chi <kiting...@gmail.com> 於 2025年3月21日 週五 下午6:52寫道： > > >> > > > >> > > Hello everyone, > > >> > > > > >> > > Sorry for the late reply. > > >> > > Based on the previous discussion, I would like to conclude with > the > > >> > > following points: > > >> > > > > >> > > 1. The upgrade to slf4j2 should be postponed to Kafka 5.0 due > to > > >> > > compatibility issues. > > >> > > 2. I will revise the motivation section of the KIP to emphasize > > >> that > > >> > the > > >> > > key benefit is allowing users to select logging backends > through > > >> > > configuration rather than modifying JAR files. > > >> > > 3. After the slf4j upgrade, users will be able to use the > > >> > > `-Dslf4j.provider` system property to configure their preferred > > >> > logging > > >> > > backend. > > >> > > 4. The KIP will document that log4j2 is the only officially > > >> supported > > >> > > server-side logging framework, and we will expose its > > configuration > > >> > > file to > > >> > > users. > > >> > > To avoid breaking downstream compatibility, we will not bind > the > > >> > client > > >> > > side to any specific logging framework. Users will need to > manage > > >> > their > > >> > > own > > >> > > logging libraries, but they can utilize the `-Dslf4j.provider` > > >> > property > > >> > > once slf4j is upgraded. > > >> > > 5. We have rejected alternatives that involve warnings and > > >> classpath > > >> > > ordering as they do not provide a solid solution to > compatibility > > >> > > issues. > > >> > > > > >> > > Does this summary make sense? > > >> > > > > >> > > Best, > > >> > > TengYao > > >> > > > > >> > > Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> 於 2025年3月21日 週五 上午9:32寫道： > > >> > > > > >> > > > A solution that involves a warning and classpath ordering > doesn't > > >> meet > > >> > > the > > >> > > > bar for me. Good clarification though. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Ismael > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:37 AM Farid Zakaria > > >> > > > <fzaka...@confluent.io.invalid> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > AFAIR SLF4J you don't have to remove the other backends; > merely > > >> make > > >> > > > > sure yours is first on the CLASSPATH list :P > > >> > > > > (SLF4J pre 2.0 would always emit a warning that it found 2+ > > >> > > > StaticBinders) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Interestingly, you could still whatever backend (i.e. Log4J) > and > > >> pipe > > >> > > > > it through to another backend via another appender. > > >> > > > > This is what SLF4J refers to bridges -- although you have to > be > > >> sure > > >> > > > > not to create a circular loop. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Then there is something also general like syslog. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 1:15 AM Chia-Ping Tsai < > > >> chia7...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > hi Ismael > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > thanks for all your response. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > All that said, I am not actually sure we can do what I > > >> described > > >> > > > above > > >> > > > > > while maintaining the compatibility required by a minor > > release. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Excuse me, are your concerns related to version matching, as > > >> > > discussed > > >> > > > in > > >> > > > > > [0]? If so, I concur that this represents a compatibility > > issue, > > >> > and > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > target version for this change should be 5.0. Additionally, > > >> there > > >> > > was a > > >> > > > > > related discussion previously documented in [1]. While we > have > > >> not > > >> > > > > strictly > > >> > > > > > enforced version matching during prior SLF4J updates, this > KIP > > >> > > provides > > >> > > > > an > > >> > > > > > opportunity to establish guidelines for upgrading sl4fj that > > >> have > > >> > > > direct > > >> > > > > > compatibility implications. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [0] https://www.slf4j.org/faq.html#compatibility > > >> > > > > > [1] > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/16324#discussion_r1644671854 > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > To Teng > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Could you please revise the KIP according to following > > benefit? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The key benefit of this KIP is that you can add new > logging > > >> > > backends > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > > select it via a config. This is how most pluggable things > > work. > > >> But > > >> > > it > > >> > > > is > > >> > > > > > *not* how slf4j 1.x works. slf4j 1.x requires you to > *remove* > > >> the > > >> > > > default > > >> > > > > > logging library picked by the project as well. That's much > > more > > >> > > > > intrusive. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > Chia-Ping > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> 於 2025年3月20日 週四 上午8:10寫道： > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Chia-Ping, > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I don't think we're in the business of shipping multiple > > >> logging > > >> > > > > libraries. > > >> > > > > > > Here's my take: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 1. We should pick one logging library for > services/servers, > > >> ship > > >> > it > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > > > include a configuration file for it. > > >> > > > > > > 2. For clients, we leave it to the users to select the > > logging > > >> > > > library > > >> > > > > - > > >> > > > > > > clients run alongside applications and it's desirable to > use > > >> the > > >> > > same > > >> > > > > > > logging library for both (if we were starting from > scratch, > > we > > >> > may > > >> > > > have > > >> > > > > > > decided to also include our default logging library for > > >> clients > > >> > as > > >> > > > > well, > > >> > > > > > > but it's hard to make that change now). > > >> > > > > > > 3. For the cases where users want to use a different > logging > > >> > > library > > >> > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > services/servers (perhaps because they have standardized > on > > a > > >> > > > different > > >> > > > > > > logging library), they would have to add the additional > jar > > to > > >> > the > > >> > > > > > > classpath and change the relevant logging config. This is > no > > >> > > > different > > >> > > > > than > > >> > > > > > > adding a different authorizer or any other pluggable > > >> component. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > The key benefit of this KIP is that you can add new > logging > > >> > > backends > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > select it via a config. This is how most pluggable things > > >> work. > > >> > But > > >> > > > it > > >> > > > > is > > >> > > > > > > *not* how slf4j 1.x works. slf4j 1.x requires you to > > *remove* > > >> the > > >> > > > > default > > >> > > > > > > logging library picked by the project as well. That's much > > >> more > > >> > > > > intrusive. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > All that said, I am not actually sure we can do what I > > >> described > > >> > > > above > > >> > > > > > > while maintaining the compatibility required by a minor > > >> release. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Ismael > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025, 2:03 PM Chia-Ping Tsai < > > >> chia7...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > hi Ismael > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > but they must also add whichever logging library they > > >> want to > > >> > > > use. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > If users are required to modify JAR files to alter the > > SLF4J > > >> > > > > provider, > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > value of this KIP is significantly diminished. I believe > > the > > >> > > > primary > > >> > > > > > > > benefit of this KIP lies in enabling users to configure > a > > >> > system > > >> > > > > property > > >> > > > > > > > for SLF4J provider changes without JAR modifications. > > >> > > Furthermore, > > >> > > > by > > >> > > > > > > > managing all SLF4J and provider JARs within Kafka, we > can > > >> > ensure > > >> > > > > SLF4J > > >> > > > > > > > version updates without compatibility concerns, as we > can > > >> > > guarantee > > >> > > > > > > > provider JAR consistency with the SLF4J version in the > > >> > > > distribution. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > > > Chia-Ping > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> 於 2025年3月19日 週三 > > 下午12:00寫道： > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi TengYao, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > It's a bit difficult to review the KIP. I don't follow > > >> most > > >> > of > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > motivation. The only one that I follow is: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > "Our current build configuration employs fragile > > >> dependency > > >> > > > > management > > >> > > > > > > > > tricks to handle SLF4J backends. We can eliminate > these > > >> > brittle > > >> > > > > build > > >> > > > > > > > > mechanisms by transitioning to explicit provider > > >> dependencies > > >> > > > after > > >> > > > > > > > > upgrading to 2.0." > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Additionally, I don't think we should do the > following: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > "Add other popular slf4j backend binding provider > > >> > > dependencies." > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > A reasonable approach, in my opinion, would be: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 1. Include the log4j2 dependency with the server > modules > > >> and > > >> > > not > > >> > > > > > > include > > >> > > > > > > > > them with the client modules. > > >> > > > > > > > > 2. Automatically configure the log4j2 dependency for > the > > >> > server > > >> > > > > > > modules. > > >> > > > > > > > > Users can override them via the system property, but > > they > > >> > must > > >> > > > > also add > > >> > > > > > > > > whichever logging library they want to use. > > >> > > > > > > > > 3. Somehow configure slf4j 2.x to work like 1.x out of > > the > > >> > box > > >> > > > for > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > client module (for compatibility reasons). > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > But I don't know if `3` is possible. If `3` is not > > >> possible, > > >> > I > > >> > > > > don't > > >> > > > > > > see > > >> > > > > > > > > how we can make this a compatible change. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ismael > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 7:41 PM TengYao Chi < > > >> > > kiting...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I want to bump this thread manually. > > >> > > > > > > > > > Any feedback or vote would be appreciated. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > > > > > TengYao > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > TengYao Chi <kiting...@gmail.com> 於 2025年3月10日 週一 > > >> > 上午11:47寫道： > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Hello guys, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I would like to remind you in the vote thread that > > the > > >> > KIP > > >> > > > has > > >> > > > > been > > >> > > > > > > > > > > updated, and I apologize for repeating it. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I have taken over this KIP from Muralidhar. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Since the original content is outdated as the > > logging > > >> > > > > framework has > > >> > > > > > > > > been > > >> > > > > > > > > > > widely changed, I have updated the content of the > > KIP. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Please take a look and share your thoughts. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > TengYao > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Muralidhar Basani <muralidhar.bas...@aiven.io > > .invalid> > > >> 於 > > >> > > > > > > 2024年9月24日 > > >> > > > > > > > 週二 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 上午5:09寫道： > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> I wanted to gently follow up on this thread in > case > > >> > anyone > > >> > > > > has any > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> thoughts > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> or would like to take a look. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Murali > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 10:23 AM Muralidhar > Basani > > < > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> muralidhar.bas...@aiven.io> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks Chia. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > I have updated KIP with this quote, in the > > >> migration > > >> > > plan > > >> > > > > > > section. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > Murali > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 3:30 PM Chia-Ping Tsai > < > > >> > > > > > > > chia7...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > Muralidhar Basani < > muralidhar.bas...@aiven.io > > >> > > .invalid> > > >> > > > 於 > > >> > > > > > > > > > 2024年9月15日 > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> 晚上9:02 寫道： > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > With this, I think, users don't have to make > > any > > >> > > > explicit > > >> > > > > > > > changes > > >> > > > > > > > > > in > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> their > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > code, if their provider is reload4j. And if > > >> it's a > > >> > > > > different > > >> > > > > > > > > > provider > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> (like > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > logback, log4j), they would have to upgrade > > >> that to > > >> > > > > match it > > >> > > > > > > > with > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> slf4j. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> If upgrading the matched provider is the only > > >> > explicit > > >> > > > > change > > >> > > > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > > > we > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> expect users have responsibility to keep > > >> consistent > > >> > > > version > > >> > > > > > > when > > >> > > > > > > > > > using > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> other providers , could we write it down to > the > > >> KIP? > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> That means we will update slf4j without KIP in > > the > > >> > > future > > >> > > > > > > except > > >> > > > > > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> specific reason. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> Best, > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> Chia-Ping > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
