Hi Fede, Thanks for your response. FV1: They are set using the regular config properties. Yes, it is possible for an end user to set arbitrary values, but then that would also be true of a builder or internal constructor. I've added a bit more information in the KIP and beefed up the config descriptions to discourage application use.
FV2: I've never encountered such nightmares myself. The framework which sets the config last would win. Maybe this is a motivation for having a programmatic way of setting the information. We could support concatenation of framework information, but that's just pandering to these people. Let me know what you think. I've also updated the KIP with a maximum length for these pieces of information since all identifiers should have defined bounds. Thanks, Andrew On 2026/07/31 08:50:11 Federico Valeri wrote: > Hi Andrew, the motivation looks good. A couple of questions: > > FV1: The KIP says frameworks should set them, but it does not specify > the mechanism. If these are ordinary user-facing configs, nothing > prevents an end user from setting arbitrary values, which defeats the > purpose. Should the framework set them programmatically (builder or > internal constructor) or is user override intentional? > > FV2: What if we have multiple layers of frameworks? Let's say a custom > framework on top of SpringBoot. I've seen similar nightmares in the > past. > > Thanks > Fede > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 8:27 AM Aditya Kousik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > We’re definitely agreed on the increased use of frameworks over than the > > client directly. I’ve cited the different patterns Spring, Micronaut, > > smallrye and company-internal frameworks have APIs built on top of the > > Kafka client, in a couple of KIPs already. > > > > The project has enough traction that I think of it as its own network > > client with distributed log semantics for which frameworks are written, > > much like gRPC over netty. People want to just write the business logic and > > leave the plumbing and threading to the frameworks. > > > > All of this to say, I’m fine to ship the client framework as the new > > identifying parameter for frameworks to set. It will be mighty useful. > > > > My addendum, rather than a pushback is that: guilty as charged, I’m driven > > by the otel/DD telemetry/observability of using Apache Kafka in > > applications. The client.framework.version config for instance can be used > > to detect regressions and isolate root causes. But I feel it is only one of > > many such facets. You mentioned that you would use client.id and > > clientInstanceId to identify a client but that these do not help with > > aggregate/fleet-wide issues. As an example, if I tag an app’s AZ it can > > help me write alerts on spike in latency in us-west-2. Or, detect stuck > > partitions across multiple client.id/application.names none of whom share > > the same client.framework.name. > > > > Other tags that come to mind: application.name, az, team, env, rack. All > > fields users usually hijack client.id for. > > > > An otel JavaAgent can capture the client metadata registered and attach it > > as tags with each resource span. Users who use frameworks but rely on > > datadog/otel will get visibility into the client metadata for free. > > > > The KIP as I read it, serves as a foundation for future use. So I don’t > > want to shoehorn a new behaviour if it explodes the scope too much. > > > > Best regards, > > Aditya > > > > > On Jul 27, 2026, at 13:52, Andrew Schofield <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Aditya, > > > Thanks for your response. > > > > > > AK1: I chose framework as the blessed abstraction because my focus was > > > problem determination for client applications. We often find that users > > > with client problems have not coded directly to the Kafka client > > > interface because they are using a framework. As a result, their > > > knowledge of the application code is one level removed from the Kafka > > > client. Frameworks can override configuration defaults, introduce > > > different retry behaviour and so on. Lots of companies have their own > > > internal frameworks, so this KIP can be used by them too. I'm trying to > > > make it easier to work out when a user is making use of a framework and > > > knowing what it is. > > > > > > Sometimes, particularly for non-Java clients, people have overridden the > > > ClientSoftwareName/Version themselves, which makes those concepts much > > > less useful than they should be. By providing > > > ClientFrameworkName/Version, there is no longer any need to do so. That's > > > another motivation here, even though KIPs don't concern themselves with > > > non-Java clients as such. > > > > > > We could go for a more flexible key-value approach, but a simple name and > > > version is sufficient for what I had in mind. Feel free to push back with > > > additional justification and examples. > > > > > > AK2: Done. o.a.k.clients.CommonClientConfigs. > > > > > > AK3: To identify a particular client, I would use client ID and > > > client-instance ID. I think these are generally more useful concepts than > > > the framework name and version which are extra information for the person > > > trying to figure out why a client is not behaving as expected. > > > > > > AK4: I'm sure you have more experience of OTel/DataDog collectors. You > > > may well be correct that they would be helpful for the collectors. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Andrew > > > > > >> On 2026/07/26 07:48:20 Aditya Kousik wrote: > > >> Hello Andrew, > > >> > > >> I’m reminded of the client.id discussion we had back in KIP-1313 re: > > >> client instance id. After that discussion, I have a WIP KIP that sets a > > >> foundation for shipping client metadata tags to be sent for telemetry. I > > >> was hoping we could discuss if part of that approach could fit this KIP. > > >> > > >> AK1. I had a note on the motivation of selecting a “framework” as a > > >> blessed abstraction. The KIP mentions it’s for the client metadata and > > >> easier problem diagnosis. This is akin to an “application id” that > > >> non-framework clients usually tag with. > > >> > > >> KIP-606 took an approach like metrics.context.<key>=<val>. If we allow > > >> client.metadata.<key>=<val>, then a framework/application name and > > >> version can sit in such a metadata context and be sent with ApiVersion > > >> RPC. Of course, this is an open box approach rather than just the > > >> framework name/version (just two fields) we’re adding to the protocol. > > >> But I’m curious about the tier of importance of framework alone. > > >> > > >> AK2. Can you clarify if this config goes into CommonClientConfigs.java, > > >> referenced across producer/consumer/share etc? I know some share props > > >> have the “share.” prefix going. > > >> > > >> AK3. In another thread you mentioned that the broker may add it to the > > >> request context. In client logs, clientId is a very useful string to > > >> identify WARN logs when things go sideways like broker disconnected, > > >> rebalance in progress etc. Can you cherry pick and highlight some useful > > >> log places that these strings can go? I suppose adding > > >> clientId/framework to the MDC context might be too voluminous. > > >> > > >> AK4. I foresee collectors like Datadog/OTel might find these tags useful > > >> in each span exported. > > >> > > >> Looking forward to your thoughts on this. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> Aditya > > >> > > >>>> On Jul 17, 2026, at 11:53, Andrew Schofield > > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> I'd like to open discussion on KIP-1368: Client framework name and > > >>> version. > > >>> > > >>> Applications often use application frameworks such as Spring to connect > > >>> to Kafka. To assist with problem diagnosis, this KIP introduces a way > > >>> to provide the framework name and version as part of the metadata the > > >>> client sends to the broker when it connects. > > >>> > > >>> Here's the KIP: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/J4Q_Gg > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Andrew > > >> >
