Hi, Andrew, Thanks for the reply.
For console consumer/producer, I agree that it would be useful to replace --property with --formatter-property to be consistent with --formatter-config. For all tools, it's fine to consolidate on --command-config. Then, I'd recommend that we also replace the existing --*-property with --command-property. Jun On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 1:51 PM Andrew Schofield < andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote: > Hi Jun, > Thanks for your comment. > > These things are never straightforward because of history. > > There are broadly speaking the following classes of CLI tools. > > 1) Console producer/consumer > Support in-line properties and config files using > --producer-property and --producer.config, and the > equivalent for the consumer tools. > > The KIP currently proposes --producer.config and > --consumer.config are replaced with --command-config. > It retains --producer-property and --consumer-property. > > Now, --property is already used by the console consumer > in order to set properties for the formatter. I don't > think we can move to simply --property for other properties. > > It would be possible to change --producer-property and > --consumer-property to --command-property. > > There is already --formatter-config, which would align > with --formatter-property if we chose to use that instead > of just --property. > > 2) Verifiable producer/consumer > When there was just the verifiable producer and consumer, > using --producer.config and --consumer.config was relatively > easy to understand because the config was for the producer or > consumer respectively. However, with the share consumer, the > admin client is also used, so --consumer.config would have > been slightly inaccurate and we used --command-config instead. > > This KIP proposes --command-config for all of these. > > 3) Performance tests > Support in-line properties and config files using > --producer.props and --producer.config (and consumer > equivalents). > > The KIP currently proposes --producer.config and > --consumer.config are replaced with --command-config, > and that --producer.props is replaced by --producer-property. > > It would be possible to change --producer-property and > --consumer-property to --command-property. > > 4) Everything else > Support config files only with a variety of flags today. > > The KIP proposes --command-config. > > Was this the kind of thing you were thinking? Do you think > --command-property is worth the change? How about > --formatter-property? Or maybe something else? > > Thanks, > Andrew > ________________________________________ > From: Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.INVALID> > Sent: 13 August 2025 19:28 > To: dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1147: Improve consistency of command-line > arguments > > Hi, Andrew, > > Thanks for the KIP. > > If we are replacing --consumer.config with --command-config, should we do > the same for --consumer-property for consistency? > > Jun > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 9:21 AM Andrew Schofield < > andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote: > > > Hi Jiunn, > > Thanks for your comment. > > > > Jiunn_00: I was not really familiar with this script, and it's pretty > > user-hostile > > because you cannot see the command-line options unless you choose one > > of the subcommands. This is why it was not in the KIP. When I tried it > out, > > it was not apparent that --config existed. However, I think you're right > > and > > I have added this to the KIP also. > > > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > ________________________________________ > > From: 黃竣陽 <s7133...@gmail.com> > > Sent: 13 August 2025 16:16 > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1147: Improve consistency of command-line > > arguments > > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > Jiunn_00: The kafka-cluster.sh script also has the --config argument. > > Should we > > align this with --command-config for consistency? > > > > Best Regards, > > Jiunn-Yang > > > Andrew Schofield <andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> 於 2025年8月13日 > > 晚上11:06 寫道： > > > > > > Hi Chia-Ping, > > > It's come to my attention that I completely missed a set of comments > > from you > > > on this KIP. Please accept my apologies. > > > > > >>> chia_00: Should we introduce `--consumer-property` to > > `kafka-consumer-perf-test.sh` and > > >>> `kafka-share-consumer-perf-test.sh` since another perf tool, > > `kafka-producer-perf-test.sh`, has `--producer-property`? > > > > > > Yes, good idea. Added to the KIP. > > > > > >>> chia_01: should we align the naming of "how many records"? > > `kafka-producer-perf-test.sh` uses `num-records`, > > >>> while `kafka-consumer-perf-test.sh` and > > `kafka-share-consumer-perf-test.sh` use `messages`. > > > > > > I think this is a sensible alignment. My view is that we generally use > > "record" in Kafka, so I suggest > > > deprecating `messages` in the two consumer tools and replacing with > > `num-records`. > > > > > >>> chia_02: Have you considering adding `reporting-interval` to > > `kafka-producer-perf-test.sh`? > > > > > > I had not but this is quite a straightforward thing to do. It has a > > reporting interval but just lacks > > > the ability to configure it. I've added it to the KIP. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Andrew > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: Federico Valeri <fedeval...@gmail.com> > > > Sent: 17 July 2025 09:50 > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1147: Improve consistency of command-line > > arguments > > > > > > Hi Andrew, thanks for this useful KIP. > > > > > > This is something that I also though while working on tools migration > > > from Scala to Java, but that wasn't the right time. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 6:18 PM Andrew Schofield > > > <andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi Kirk, > > >> Thanks for your email. > > >> > > >> KT01: During the migration period, using both --producer-props and > > --producer-property > > >> is an error. If they use --producer-props, it works and they get a > > deprecation warning. > > >> If they use --producer-property, it works with no warning. I have > > updated the KIP > > >> accordingly. > > >> > > >> I don't really like --command-config either, but I don't think it's > > ambiguous as such. It's > > >> just a bit generic to my way of thinking. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Andrew > > >> ________________________________________ > > >> From: Kirk True <k...@kirktrue.pro> > > >> Sent: 10 July 2025 02:06 > > >> To: dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org> > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1147: Improve consistency of command-line > > arguments > > >> > > >> Hi Andrew, > > >> > > >> Thanks for the KIP. Yes, the inconsistency drives me crazy :) > > >> > > >> Just one initial question: > > >> > > >> KT01: During the migration period where both command line arguments > are > > supported (e.g. --producer-props and --producer-property), which takes > > precedence? > > >> > > >> I'm not ecstatic about the existing naming of "--command-config" > > because it's ambiguous, but that's a battle for another day... > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Kirk > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2025, at 6:53 AM, Andrew Schofield wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> I'd like to start discussion of KIP-1147. This KIP aligns the names > of > > the command-line > > >>> arguments across all of the Apache Kafka command-line tools. > > >>> > > >>> KIP: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1147%3A+Improve+consistency+of+command-line+arguments > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Andrew > > >
