Andri, Thanks for the summary.
1. I just realized that in order to start working on KAFKA-1927, we will need to merge the changes to OffsetCommitRequest (from 0.8.2) to trunk. This is planned to be done as part of KAFKA-1634. So, we will need Guozhang and Joel's help to wrap this up. 2. Thinking about this a bit more, if the semantic of those "write" requests is async (i.e., after the client gets a response, it just means that the operation is initiated, but not necessarily completed), we don't really need to forward the requests to the controller. Instead, the receiving broker can just write the operation to ZK as the admin command line tool previously does. This will simplify the implementation. 8. There is another implementation detail for describe topic. Ideally, we want to read the topic config from the broker cache, instead of ZooKeeper. Currently, every broker reads the topic-level config for all topics. However, it ignores those for topics not hosted on itself. So, we may need to change TopicConfigManager a bit so that it caches the configs for all topics. Thanks, Jun On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Andrii Biletskyi < andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > Guys, > > Thanks for a great discussion! > Here are the actions points: > > 1. Q: Get rid of all scala requests objects, use java protocol definitions. > A: Gwen kindly took that (KAFKA-1927). It's important to speed up > review procedure > there since this ticket blocks other important changes. > > 2. Q: Generic re-reroute facility vs client maintaining cluster state. > A: Jay has added pseudo code to KAFKA-1912 - need to consider whether > this will be > easy to implement as a server-side feature (comments are > welcomed!). > > 3. Q: Controller field in wire protocol. > A: This might be useful for clients, add this to TopicMetadataResponse > (already in KIP). > > 4. Q: Decoupling topic creation from TMR. > A: I will add proposed by Jun solution (using clientId for that) to the > KIP. > > 5. Q: Bumping new versions of TMR vs grabbing all protocol changes in one > version. > A: It was decided to try to gather all changes to protocol (before > release). > In case of TMR it worth checking: KAFKA-2020 and KIP-13 (quotas) > > 6. Q: JSON lib is needed to deserialize user's input in CLI tool. > A: Use jackson for that, /tools project is a separate jar so shouldn't > be a big deal. > > 7. Q: VerifyReassingPartitions vs generic status check command. > A: For long-running requests like reassign partitions *progress* check > request is useful, > it makes sense to introduce it. > > Please add, correct me if I missed something. > > Thanks, > Andrii Biletskyi > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Andrii Biletskyi < > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > Joel, > > > > You are right, I removed ClusterMetadata because we have partially > > what we need in TopicMetadata. Also, as Jay pointed out earlier, we > > would like to have "orthogonal" API, but at the same time we need > > to be backward compatible. > > > > But I like your idea and even have some other arguments for this option: > > There is also DescribeTopicRequest which was proposed in this KIP, > > it returns topic configs, partitions, replication factor plus partition > > ISR, ASR, > > leader replica. The later part is really already there in > > TopicMetadataRequest. > > So again we'll have to add stuff to TMR, not to duplicate some info in > > newly added requests. However, this way we'll end up with "monster" > > request which returns cluster metadata, topic replication and config info > > plus partition replication data. Seems logical to split TMR to > > - ClusterMetadata (brokers + controller, maybe smth else) > > - TopicMetadata (topic info + partition details) > > But since current TMR is involved in lots of places (including network > > client, > > as I understand) this might be very serious change and it probably makes > > sense to stick with current approach. > > > > Thanks, > > Andrii Biletskyi > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I may be missing some context but hopefully this will also be covered > >> today: I thought the earlier proposal where there was an explicit > >> ClusterMetadata request was clearer and explicit. During the course of > >> this thread I think the conclusion was that the main need was for > >> controller information and that can be rolled into the topic metadata > >> response but that seems a bit irrelevant to topic metadata. FWIW I > >> think the full broker-list is also irrelevant to topic metadata, but > >> it is already there and in use. I think there is still room for an > >> explicit ClusterMetadata request since there may be other > >> cluster-level information that we may want to add over time (and that > >> have nothing to do with topic metadata). > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 02:45:30PM +0200, Andrii Biletskyi wrote: > >> > Jun, > >> > > >> > 101. Okay, if you say that such use case is important. I also think > >> > using clientId for these purposes is fine - if we already have this > >> field > >> > as part of all Wire protocol messages, why not use that. > >> > I will update KIP-4 page if nobody has other ideas (which may come up > >> > during the call today). > >> > > >> > 102.1 Agree, I'll update the KIP accordingly. I think we can add new, > >> > fine-grained error codes if some error code received in specific case > >> > won't give enough context to return a descriptive error message for > >> user. > >> > > >> > Look forward to discussing all outstanding issues in detail today > during > >> > the call. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Andrii Biletskyi > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:59 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> > > >> > > 101. There may be a use case where you only want the topics to be > >> created > >> > > manually by admins. Currently, you can do that by disabling auto > topic > >> > > creation and issue topic creation from the TopicCommand. If we > >> disable auto > >> > > topic creation completely on the broker and don't have a way to > >> distinguish > >> > > between topic creation requests from the regular clients and the > >> admin, we > >> > > can't support manual topic creation any more. I was thinking that > >> another > >> > > way of distinguishing the clients making the topic creation requests > >> is > >> > > using clientId. For example, the admin tool can set it to something > >> like > >> > > admin and the broker can treat that clientId specially. > >> > > > >> > > Also, there is a related discussion in KAFKA-2020. Currently, we do > >> the > >> > > following in TopicMetadataResponse: > >> > > > >> > > 1. If leader is not available, we set the partition level error code > >> to > >> > > LeaderNotAvailable. > >> > > 2. If a non-leader replica is not available, we take that replica > out > >> of > >> > > the assigned replica list and isr in the response. As an indication > >> for > >> > > doing that, we set the partition level error code to > >> ReplicaNotAvailable. > >> > > > >> > > This has a few problems. First, ReplicaNotAvailable probably > >> shouldn't be > >> > > an error, at least for the normal producer/consumer clients that > just > >> want > >> > > to find out the leader. Second, it can happen that both the leader > and > >> > > another replica are not available at the same time. There is no > error > >> code > >> > > to indicate both. Third, even if a replica is not available, it's > >> still > >> > > useful to return its replica id since some clients (e.g. admin tool) > >> may > >> > > still make use of it. > >> > > > >> > > One way to address this issue is to always return the replica id for > >> > > leader, assigned replicas, and isr regardless of whether the > >> corresponding > >> > > broker is live or not. Since we also return the list of live > brokers, > >> the > >> > > client can figure out whether a leader or a replica is live or not > >> and act > >> > > accordingly. This way, we don't need to set the partition level > error > >> code > >> > > when the leader or a replica is not available. This doesn't change > >> the wire > >> > > protocol, but does change the semantics. Since we are evolving the > >> protocol > >> > > of TopicMetadataRequest here, we can potentially piggyback the > change. > >> > > > >> > > 102.1 For those types of errors due to invalid input, shouldn't we > >> just > >> > > guard it at parameter validation time and throw > >> InvalidArgumentException > >> > > without even sending the request to the broker? > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > > >> > > Jun > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Andrii Biletskyi < > >> > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Jun, > >> > > > > >> > > > Answering your questions: > >> > > > > >> > > > 101. If I understand you correctly, you are saying future producer > >> > > versions > >> > > > (which > >> > > > will be ported to TMR_V1) won't be able to automatically create > >> topic (if > >> > > > we > >> > > > unconditionally remove topic creation from there). But we need to > >> this > >> > > > preserve logic. > >> > > > Ok, about your proposal: I'm not a big fan too, when it comes to > >> > > > differentiating > >> > > > clients directly in protocol schema. And also I'm not sure I > >> understand > >> > > at > >> > > > all why > >> > > > auto.create.topics.enable is a server side configuration. Can we > >> > > deprecate > >> > > > this setting > >> > > > in future versions, add this setting to producer and based on that > >> upon > >> > > > receiving > >> > > > UnknownTopic create topic explicitly by a separate producer call > via > >> > > > adminClient? > >> > > > > >> > > > 102.1. Hm, yes. It's because we want to support batching and at > the > >> same > >> > > > time we > >> > > > want to give descriptive error messages for clients. Since > >> AdminClient > >> > > > holds the context > >> > > > to construct such messages (e.g. AdminClient layer can know that > >> > > > InvalidArgumentsCode > >> > > > means two cases: either invalid number - e.g. -1; or > >> replication-factor > >> > > was > >> > > > provided while > >> > > > partitions argument wasn't) - I wrapped responses in Exceptions. > >> But I'm > >> > > > open to any > >> > > > other ideas, this was just initial version. > >> > > > 102.2. Yes, I agree. I'll change that to probably some other dto. > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > Andrii Biletskyi > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Andrii, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 101. That's what I was thinking too, but it may not be that > >> simple. In > >> > > > > TopicMetadataRequest_V1, > >> > > > > we can let it not trigger auto topic creation. Then, in the > >> producer > >> > > > side, > >> > > > > if it gets an UnknownTopicException, it can explicitly issue a > >> > > > > createTopicRequest for auto topic creation. On the consumer > side, > >> it > >> > > will > >> > > > > never issue createTopicRequest. This works when auto topic > >> creation is > >> > > > > enabled on the broker side. However, I am not sure how things > >> will work > >> > > > > when auto topic creation is disabled on the broker side. In this > >> case, > >> > > we > >> > > > > want to have a way to manually create a topic, potentially > through > >> > > admin > >> > > > > commands. However, then we need a way to distinguish > >> createTopicRequest > >> > > > > issued from the producer clients and the admin tools. May be we > >> can > >> > > add a > >> > > > > new field in createTopicRequest and set it differently in the > >> producer > >> > > > > client and the admin client. However, I am not sure if that's > the > >> best > >> > > > > approach. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 2. Yes, refactoring existing requests is a non-trivial amount of > >> work. > >> > > I > >> > > > > posted some comments in KAFKA-1927. We will probably have to fix > >> > > > KAFKA-1927 > >> > > > > first, before adding the new logic in KAFKA-1694. Otherwise, the > >> > > changes > >> > > > > will be too big. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 102. About the AdminClient: > >> > > > > 102.1. It's a bit weird that we return exception in the api. It > >> seems > >> > > > that > >> > > > > we should either return error code or throw an exception when > >> getting > >> > > the > >> > > > > response state. > >> > > > > 102.2. We probably shouldn't explicitly use the request object > in > >> the > >> > > > api. > >> > > > > Not every request evolution requires an api change. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Jun > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Andrii Biletskyi < > >> > > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Jun, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks for you comments. Answers inline: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 100. There are a few fields such as ReplicaAssignment, > >> > > > > > > ReassignPartitionRequest, > >> > > > > > > and PartitionsSerialized that are represented as a string, > but > >> > > > contain > >> > > > > > > composite structures in json. Could we flatten them out > >> directly in > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > > protocol definition as arrays/records? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Yes, now with Admin Client this looks a bit weird. My initial > >> > > > motivation > >> > > > > > was: > >> > > > > > ReassignPartitionCommand accepts input in json, we want to > >> remain > >> > > > tools' > >> > > > > > interfaces unchanged, where possible. > >> > > > > > If we port it to deserialized format, in CLI (/tools project) > >> we will > >> > > > > have > >> > > > > > to add some > >> > > > > > json library since /tools is written in java and we'll need to > >> > > > > deserialize > >> > > > > > json file > >> > > > > > provided by a user. Can we quickly agree on what this library > >> should > >> > > be > >> > > > > > (Jackson, GSON, whatever)? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 101. Does TopicMetadataRequest v1 still trigger auto topic > >> creation? > >> > > > This > >> > > > > > > will be a bit weird now that we have a separate topic > >> creation api. > >> > > > > Have > >> > > > > > > you thought about how the new createTopicRequest and > >> > > > > TopicMetadataRequest > >> > > > > > > v1 will be used in the producer/consumer client, in addition > >> to > >> > > admin > >> > > > > > > tools? For example, ideally, we don't want > >> TopicMetadataRequest > >> > > from > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > consumer to trigger auto topic creation. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I agree, this strange logic should be fixed. I'm not confident > >> in > >> > > this > >> > > > > > Kafka part so > >> > > > > > correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like a hard thing > >> to > >> > > do, I > >> > > > > > think we can > >> > > > > > leverage AdminClient for that in Producer and unconditionally > >> remove > >> > > > > topic > >> > > > > > creation from the TopicMetadataRequest_V1. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2. I think Jay meant getting rid of scala classes > >> > > > > > > like HeartbeatRequestAndHeader and > >> HeartbeatResponseAndHeader. We > >> > > did > >> > > > > > that > >> > > > > > > as a stop-gap thing when adding the new requests for the > >> consumers. > >> > > > > > > However, the long term plan is to get rid of all those and > >> just > >> > > reuse > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > java request/response in the client. Since this KIP proposes > >> to > >> > > add a > >> > > > > > > significant number of new requests, perhaps we should bite > the > >> > > bullet > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > > clean up the existing scala requests first before adding new > >> ones? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Yes, looks like I misunderstood the point of > >> ...RequestAndHeader. > >> > > > Okay, I > >> > > > > > will > >> > > > > > rework that. The only thing is that I don't see any example > how > >> it > >> > > was > >> > > > > done > >> > > > > > for at > >> > > > > > least one existing protocol message. Thus, as I understand, I > >> have to > >> > > > > think > >> > > > > > how we > >> > > > > > are going to do it. > >> > > > > > Re porting all existing RQ/RP in this patch. Sounds > reasonable, > >> but > >> > > if > >> > > > > it's > >> > > > > > an *obligatory* > >> > > > > > requirement to have Admin KIP done, I'm afraid this can be a > >> serious > >> > > > > > blocker for us. > >> > > > > > There are 13 protocol messages and all that would require not > >> only > >> > > unit > >> > > > > > tests but quite > >> > > > > > intensive manual testing, no? I'm afraid I'm not the right guy > >> to > >> > > cover > >> > > > > > pretty much all > >> > > > > > Kafka core internals :). Let me know your thoughts on this > >> item. Btw > >> > > > > there > >> > > > > > is a ticket to > >> > > > > > follow-up this issue ( > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2006 > >> > > > ). > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > Andrii Biletskyi > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Andrii, > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > A few more comments. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 100. There are a few fields such as ReplicaAssignment, > >> > > > > > > ReassignPartitionRequest, > >> > > > > > > and PartitionsSerialized that are represented as a string, > but > >> > > > contain > >> > > > > > > composite structures in json. Could we flatten them out > >> directly in > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > > protocol definition as arrays/records? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 101. Does TopicMetadataRequest v1 still trigger auto topic > >> > > creation? > >> > > > > This > >> > > > > > > will be a bit weird now that we have a separate topic > >> creation api. > >> > > > > Have > >> > > > > > > you thought about how the new createTopicRequest and > >> > > > > TopicMetadataRequest > >> > > > > > > v1 will be used in the producer/consumer client, in addition > >> to > >> > > admin > >> > > > > > > tools? For example, ideally, we don't want > >> TopicMetadataRequest > >> > > from > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > consumer to trigger auto topic creation. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2. I think Jay meant getting rid of scala classes > >> > > > > > > like HeartbeatRequestAndHeader and > >> HeartbeatResponseAndHeader. We > >> > > did > >> > > > > > that > >> > > > > > > as a stop-gap thing when adding the new requests for the > >> consumers. > >> > > > > > > However, the long term plan is to get rid of all those and > >> just > >> > > reuse > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > java request/response in the client. Since this KIP proposes > >> to > >> > > add a > >> > > > > > > significant number of new requests, perhaps we should bite > the > >> > > bullet > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > > clean up the existing scala requests first before adding new > >> ones? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Jun > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Andrii Biletskyi < > >> > > > > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi, > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > As said above - I list again all comments from this thread > >> so we > >> > > > > > > > can see what's left and finalize all pending issues. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Comments from Jay: > >> > > > > > > > 1. This is much needed functionality, but there are a lot > >> of the > >> > > so > >> > > > > > let's > >> > > > > > > > really think these protocols through. We really want to > end > >> up > >> > > > with a > >> > > > > > set > >> > > > > > > > of well thought-out, orthoganol apis. For this reason I > >> think it > >> > > is > >> > > > > > > really > >> > > > > > > > important to think through the end state even if that > >> includes > >> > > APIs > >> > > > > we > >> > > > > > > > won't implement in the first phase. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: Definitely behind this. Would appreciate if there are > >> concrete > >> > > > > > > comments > >> > > > > > > > how this can be improved. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 2. Let's please please please wait until we have switched > >> the > >> > > > server > >> > > > > > over > >> > > > > > > > to the new java protocol definitions. If we add upteen > more > >> ad > >> > > hoc > >> > > > > > scala > >> > > > > > > > objects that is just generating more work for the > >> conversion we > >> > > > know > >> > > > > we > >> > > > > > > > have to do. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: Fixed in the latest patch - removed scala protocol > >> classes. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 3. This proposal introduces a new type of optional > >> parameter. > >> > > This > >> > > > is > >> > > > > > > > inconsistent with everything else in the protocol where we > >> use -1 > >> > > > or > >> > > > > > some > >> > > > > > > > other marker value. You could argue either way but let's > >> stick > >> > > with > >> > > > > > that > >> > > > > > > > for consistency. For clients that implemented the protocol > >> in a > >> > > > > better > >> > > > > > > way > >> > > > > > > > than our scala code these basic primitives are hard to > >> change. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: Fixed in the latest patch - removed MaybeOf type and > >> changed > >> > > > > > protocol > >> > > > > > > > accordingly. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 4. ClusterMetadata: This seems to duplicate > >> TopicMetadataRequest > >> > > > > which > >> > > > > > > has > >> > > > > > > > brokers, topics, and partitions. I think we should rename > >> that > >> > > > > request > >> > > > > > > > ClusterMetadataRequest (or just MetadataRequest) and > >> include the > >> > > id > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > controller. Or are there other things we could add here? > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: I agree. Updated the KIP. Let's extends TopicMetadata > to > >> > > > version 2 > >> > > > > > and > >> > > > > > > > include controller. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 5. We have a tendency to try to make a lot of requests > that > >> can > >> > > > only > >> > > > > go > >> > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > particular nodes. This adds a lot of burden for client > >> > > > > implementations > >> > > > > > > (it > >> > > > > > > > sounds easy but each discovery can fail in many parts so > it > >> ends > >> > > up > >> > > > > > > being a > >> > > > > > > > full state machine to do right). I think we should > consider > >> > > making > >> > > > > > admin > >> > > > > > > > commands and ideally as many of the other apis as possible > >> > > > available > >> > > > > on > >> > > > > > > all > >> > > > > > > > brokers and just redirect to the controller on the broker > >> side. > >> > > > > Perhaps > >> > > > > > > > there would be a general way to encapsulate this > re-routing > >> > > > behavior. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: It's a very interesting idea, but seems there are some > >> > > concerns > >> > > > > > about > >> > > > > > > > this > >> > > > > > > > feature (like performance considerations, how this will > >> > > complicate > >> > > > > > server > >> > > > > > > > etc). > >> > > > > > > > I believe this shouldn't be a blocker. If this feature is > >> > > > implemented > >> > > > > > at > >> > > > > > > > some > >> > > > > > > > point it won't affect Admin changes - at least no changes > to > >> > > public > >> > > > > API > >> > > > > > > > will be required. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 6. We should probably normalize the key value pairs used > for > >> > > > configs > >> > > > > > > rather > >> > > > > > > > than embedding a new formatting. So two strings rather > than > >> one > >> > > > with > >> > > > > an > >> > > > > > > > internal equals sign. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: Fixed in the latest patch - normalized configs and > >> changed > >> > > > > protocol > >> > > > > > > > accordingly. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 7. Is the postcondition of these APIs that the command has > >> begun > >> > > or > >> > > > > > that > >> > > > > > > > the command has been completed? It is a lot more usable if > >> the > >> > > > > command > >> > > > > > > has > >> > > > > > > > been completed so you know that if you create a topic and > >> then > >> > > > > publish > >> > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > it you won't get an exception about there being no such > >> topic. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: For long running requests (like reassign partitions) - > >> the > >> > > post > >> > > > > > > > condition is > >> > > > > > > > command has begun - so we don't block the client. In case > >> of your > >> > > > > > > example - > >> > > > > > > > topic commands, this will be refactored and topic commands > >> will > >> > > be > >> > > > > > > executed > >> > > > > > > > immediately, since the Controller will serve Admin > requests > >> > > > > > > > (follow-up ticket KAFKA-1777). > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 8. Describe topic and list topics duplicate a lot of stuff > >> in the > >> > > > > > > metadata > >> > > > > > > > request. Is there a reason to give back topics marked for > >> > > > deletion? I > >> > > > > > > feel > >> > > > > > > > like if we just make the post-condition of the delete > >> command be > >> > > > that > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > topic is deleted that will get rid of the need for this > >> right? > >> > > And > >> > > > it > >> > > > > > > will > >> > > > > > > > be much more intuitive. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: Fixed in the latest patch - removed topics marked for > >> deletion > >> > > > in > >> > > > > > > > ListTopicsRequest. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 9. Should we consider batching these requests? We have > >> generally > >> > > > > tried > >> > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > allow multiple operations to be batched. My suspicion is > >> that > >> > > > without > >> > > > > > > this > >> > > > > > > > we will get a lot of code that does something like > >> > > > > > > > for(topic: adminClient.listTopics()) > >> > > > > > > > adminClient.describeTopic(topic) > >> > > > > > > > this code will work great when you test on 5 topics but > not > >> do as > >> > > > > well > >> > > > > > if > >> > > > > > > > you have 50k. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: Updated the KIP - please check "Topic Admin Schema" > >> section. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 10. I think we should also discuss how we want to expose a > >> > > > > programmatic > >> > > > > > > JVM > >> > > > > > > > client api for these operations. Currently people rely on > >> > > > AdminUtils > >> > > > > > > which > >> > > > > > > > is totally sketchy. I think we probably need another > client > >> under > >> > > > > > > clients/ > >> > > > > > > > that exposes administrative functionality. We will need > >> this just > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > > > properly test the new apis, I suspect. We should figure > out > >> that > >> > > > API. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: Updated the KIP - please check "Admin Client" section > >> with an > >> > > > > > initial > >> > > > > > > > API proposal. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 11. The other information that would be really useful to > get > >> > > would > >> > > > be > >> > > > > > > > information about partitions--how much data is in the > >> partition, > >> > > > what > >> > > > > > are > >> > > > > > > > the segment offsets, what is the log-end offset (i.e. last > >> > > offset), > >> > > > > > what > >> > > > > > > is > >> > > > > > > > the compaction point, etc. I think that done right this > >> would be > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > > > successor to the very awkward OffsetRequest we have today. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: I removed ConsumerGroupOffsetsRequest in the latest > >> patch. I > >> > > > > believe > >> > > > > > > > this should > >> > > > > > > > be resolved in a separate KIP / jira ticket. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 12. Generally we can do good error handling without > needing > >> > > custom > >> > > > > > > > server-side > >> > > > > > > > messages. I.e. generally the client has the context to > know > >> that > >> > > if > >> > > > > it > >> > > > > > > got > >> > > > > > > > an error that the topic doesn't exist to say "Topic X > >> doesn't > >> > > > exist" > >> > > > > > > rather > >> > > > > > > > than "error code 14" (or whatever). Maybe there are > specific > >> > > cases > >> > > > > > where > >> > > > > > > > this is hard? If we want to add server-side error messages > >> we > >> > > > really > >> > > > > do > >> > > > > > > > need to do this in a consistent way across the protocol. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: Updated the KIP - please check "Protocol Errors" > >> section. I > >> > > > added > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > comprehensive, fine-grained list of error codes. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Comments from Guozhang: > >> > > > > > > > 13. Describe topic request: it would be great to go beyond > >> just > >> > > > > > batching > >> > > > > > > on > >> > > > > > > > topic name regex for this request. For example, a very > >> common use > >> > > > > case > >> > > > > > of > >> > > > > > > > the topic command is to list all topics whose config A's > >> value is > >> > > > B. > >> > > > > > With > >> > > > > > > > topic name regex then we have to first retrieve __all__ > >> topics's > >> > > > > > > > description info and then filter at the client end, which > >> will > >> > > be a > >> > > > > > huge > >> > > > > > > > burden on ZK. > >> > > > > > > > AND > >> > > > > > > > 14. Config K-Vs in create topic: this is related to the > >> previous > >> > > > > point; > >> > > > > > > > maybe we can add another metadata K-V or just a metadata > >> string > >> > > > along > >> > > > > > > side > >> > > > > > > > with config K-V in create topic like we did for offset > >> commit > >> > > > > request. > >> > > > > > > This > >> > > > > > > > field can be quite useful in storing information like > >> "owner" of > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > > topic > >> > > > > > > > who issue the create command, etc, which is quite > important > >> for a > >> > > > > > > > multi-tenant setting. Then in the describe topic request > we > >> can > >> > > > also > >> > > > > > > batch > >> > > > > > > > on regex of the metadata field. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: As discussed it is very interesting but can be > >> implemented > >> > > later > >> > > > > > after > >> > > > > > > > we have some basic functionality there. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 15. Today all the admin operations are async in the sense > >> that > >> > > > > command > >> > > > > > > will > >> > > > > > > > return once it is written in ZK, and that is why we need > >> extra > >> > > > > > > verification > >> > > > > > > > like testUtil.waitForTopicCreated() / verify partition > >> > > reassignment > >> > > > > > > > request, etc. With admin requests we could add a flag to > >> enable / > >> > > > > > disable > >> > > > > > > > synchronous requests; when it is turned on, the response > >> will not > >> > > > > > return > >> > > > > > > > until the request has been completed. And for async > >> requests we > >> > > can > >> > > > > > add a > >> > > > > > > > "token" field in the response, and then only need a > general > >> > > "admin > >> > > > > > > > verification request" with the given token to check if the > >> async > >> > > > > > request > >> > > > > > > > has been completed. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: I see your point. My idea was to provide specific > >> > > > Verify...Request > >> > > > > > per > >> > > > > > > > each > >> > > > > > > > long running request, where needed. We can do it the way > you > >> > > > suggest. > >> > > > > > The > >> > > > > > > > only > >> > > > > > > > concern is that introducing a token we again will make > >> schema > >> > > > > > "dynamic". > >> > > > > > > We > >> > > > > > > > wanted > >> > > > > > > > to do similar thing introducing single AdminRequest for > all > >> topic > >> > > > > > > commands > >> > > > > > > > but rejected > >> > > > > > > > this idea because we wanted to have schema defined. So > this > >> is > >> > > > more a > >> > > > > > > > choice between: > >> > > > > > > > a) have fixed schema but introduce each time new > >> Verify...Request > >> > > > for > >> > > > > > > > long-running requests > >> > > > > > > > b) use one request for verification but generalize it with > >> token > >> > > > > > > > I'm fine with whatever decision community come to. Just > let > >> me > >> > > know > >> > > > > > your > >> > > > > > > > thoughts. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Comment from Gwen: > >> > > > > > > > 16. Specifically for ownership, I think the plan is to add > >> ACL > >> > > (it > >> > > > > > sounds > >> > > > > > > > like you are describing ACL) via an external system > (Argus, > >> > > > Sentry). > >> > > > > > > > I remember KIP-11 described this, but I can't find the KIP > >> any > >> > > > > longer. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > A: Okay, no problem. Not sure though how we are going to > >> handle > >> > > it. > >> > > > > > Wait > >> > > > > > > > which KIP > >> > > > > > > > will be committed first and include changes to > >> TopicMetadata from > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > > later > >> > > > > > > > one? > >> > > > > > > > Anyway, I added this note to "Open Questions" section so > we > >> don't > >> > > > > miss > >> > > > > > > this > >> > > > > > > > piece. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > > > Andrii Biletskyi > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Andrii Biletskyi < > >> > > > > > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi all, > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Today I uploaded the patch that covers some of the > >> discussed > >> > > and > >> > > > > > agreed > >> > > > > > > > > items: > >> > > > > > > > > - removed MaybeOf optional type > >> > > > > > > > > - switched to java protocol definitions > >> > > > > > > > > - simplified messages (normalized configs, removed topic > >> marked > >> > > > for > >> > > > > > > > > deletion) > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I also updated the KIP-4 with respective changes and > >> wrote down > >> > > > my > >> > > > > > > > > proposal for > >> > > > > > > > > pending items: > >> > > > > > > > > - Batch Admin Operations -> updated Wire Protocol schema > >> > > proposal > >> > > > > > > > > - Remove ClusterMetadata -> changed to extend > >> > > > TopicMetadataRequest > >> > > > > > > > > - Admin Client -> updated my initial proposal to reflect > >> > > batching > >> > > > > > > > > - Error codes -> proposed fine-grained error code > instead > >> of > >> > > > > > > > > AdminRequestFailed > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I will also send a separate email to cover all comments > >> from > >> > > this > >> > > > > > > thread. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > > > > Andrii Biletskyi > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Gwen Shapira < > >> > > > > gshap...@cloudera.com > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Found KIP-11 ( > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-11+-+Authorization+Interface > >> > > > > > > > >> ) > >> > > > > > > > >> It actually specifies changes to the Metadata protocol, > >> so > >> > > > making > >> > > > > > sure > >> > > > > > > > >> both KIPs are consistent in this regard will be good. > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Gwen Shapira < > >> > > > > > gshap...@cloudera.com > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > Specifically for ownership, I think the plan is to > add > >> ACL > >> > > (it > >> > > > > > > sounds > >> > > > > > > > >> > like you are describing ACL) via an external system > >> (Argus, > >> > > > > > Sentry). > >> > > > > > > > >> > I remember KIP-11 described this, but I can't find > the > >> KIP > >> > > any > >> > > > > > > longer. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Regardless, I think KIP-4 focuses on getting > >> information > >> > > that > >> > > > > > > already > >> > > > > > > > >> > exists from Kafka brokers, not on adding information > >> that > >> > > > > perhaps > >> > > > > > > > >> > should exist but doesn't yet? > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Gwen > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Guozhang Wang < > >> > > > > > wangg...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >> Folks, > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> Just want to elaborate a bit more on the > create-topic > >> > > > metadata > >> > > > > > and > >> > > > > > > > >> batching > >> > > > > > > > >> >> describe-topic based on config / metadata in my > >> previous > >> > > > email > >> > > > > as > >> > > > > > > we > >> > > > > > > > >> work > >> > > > > > > > >> >> on KAFKA-1694. The main motivation is to have some > >> sort of > >> > > > > topic > >> > > > > > > > >> management > >> > > > > > > > >> >> mechanisms, which I think is quite important in a > >> > > > multi-tenant > >> > > > > / > >> > > > > > > > cloud > >> > > > > > > > >> >> architecture: today anyone can create topics in a > >> shared > >> > > > Kafka > >> > > > > > > > >> cluster, but > >> > > > > > > > >> >> there is no concept or "ownership" of topics that > are > >> > > created > >> > > > > by > >> > > > > > > > >> different > >> > > > > > > > >> >> users. For example, at LinkedIn we basically > >> distinguish > >> > > > topic > >> > > > > > > owners > >> > > > > > > > >> via > >> > > > > > > > >> >> some casual topic name prefix, which is a bit > awkward > >> and > >> > > > does > >> > > > > > not > >> > > > > > > > fly > >> > > > > > > > >> as > >> > > > > > > > >> >> we scale our customers. It would be great to use > >> > > > > describe-topics > >> > > > > > > such > >> > > > > > > > >> as: > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> Describe all topics that is created by me. > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> Describe all topics whose retention time is > overriden > >> to X. > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> Describe all topics whose writable group include > user > >> Y > >> > > (this > >> > > > > is > >> > > > > > > > >> related to > >> > > > > > > > >> >> authorization), etc.. > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> One possible way to achieve this is to add a > metadata > >> file > >> > > in > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > >> >> create-topic request, whose value will also be > >> written ZK > >> > > as > >> > > > we > >> > > > > > > > create > >> > > > > > > > >> the > >> > > > > > > > >> >> topic; then describe-topics can choose to batch > topics > >> > > based > >> > > > on > >> > > > > > 1) > >> > > > > > > > name > >> > > > > > > > >> >> regex, 2) config K-V matching, 3) metadata regex, > etc. > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> Thoughts? > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> Guozhang > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Guozhang Wang < > >> > > > > > wangg...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> Thanks for the updated wiki. A few comments below: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> 1. Error description in response: I think if some > >> > > errorCode > >> > > > > > could > >> > > > > > > > >> indicate > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> several different error cases then we should really > >> change > >> > > > it > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > >> multiple > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> codes. In general the errorCode itself would be > >> precise > >> > > and > >> > > > > > > > >> sufficient for > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> describing the server side errors. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> 2. Describe topic request: it would be great to go > >> beyond > >> > > > just > >> > > > > > > > >> batching on > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> topic name regex for this request. For example, a > >> very > >> > > > common > >> > > > > > use > >> > > > > > > > >> case of > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> the topic command is to list all topics whose > config > >> A's > >> > > > value > >> > > > > > is > >> > > > > > > B. > >> > > > > > > > >> With > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> topic name regex then we have to first retrieve > >> __all__ > >> > > > > topics's > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> description info and then filter at the client end, > >> which > >> > > > will > >> > > > > > be > >> > > > > > > a > >> > > > > > > > >> huge > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> burden on ZK. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> 3. Config K-Vs in create topic: this is related to > >> the > >> > > > > previous > >> > > > > > > > point; > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> maybe we can add another metadata K-V or just a > >> metadata > >> > > > > string > >> > > > > > > > along > >> > > > > > > > >> side > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> with config K-V in create topic like we did for > >> offset > >> > > > commit > >> > > > > > > > >> request. This > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> field can be quite useful in storing information > like > >> > > > "owner" > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > >> topic > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> who issue the create command, etc, which is quite > >> > > important > >> > > > > for > >> > > > > > a > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> multi-tenant setting. Then in the describe topic > >> request > >> > > we > >> > > > > can > >> > > > > > > also > >> > > > > > > > >> batch > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> on regex of the metadata field. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> 4. Today all the admin operations are async in the > >> sense > >> > > > that > >> > > > > > > > command > >> > > > > > > > >> will > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> return once it is written in ZK, and that is why we > >> need > >> > > > extra > >> > > > > > > > >> verification > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> like testUtil.waitForTopicCreated() / verify > >> partition > >> > > > > > > reassignment > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> request, etc. With admin requests we could add a > >> flag to > >> > > > > enable > >> > > > > > / > >> > > > > > > > >> disable > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> synchronous requests; when it is turned on, the > >> response > >> > > > will > >> > > > > > not > >> > > > > > > > >> return > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> until the request has been completed. And for async > >> > > requests > >> > > > > we > >> > > > > > > can > >> > > > > > > > >> add a > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> "token" field in the response, and then only need a > >> > > general > >> > > > > > "admin > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> verification request" with the given token to check > >> if the > >> > > > > async > >> > > > > > > > >> request > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> has been completed. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> 5. +1 for extending Metadata request to include > >> > > controller / > >> > > > > > > > >> coordinator > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> information, and then we can remove the > >> ConsumerMetadata / > >> > > > > > > > >> ClusterMetadata > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> requests. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> Guozhang > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Joel Koshy < > >> > > > > > jjkosh...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> Thanks for sending that out Joe - I don't think I > >> will be > >> > > > > able > >> > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > >> make > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> it today, so if notes can be sent out afterward > that > >> > > would > >> > > > be > >> > > > > > > > great. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 09:16:13AM -0800, Gwen > >> Shapira > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > Thanks for sending this out Joe. Looking forward > >> to > >> > > > > chatting > >> > > > > > > with > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> everyone :) > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Joe Stein < > >> > > > > > > joe.st...@stealth.ly> > >> > > > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > Hey, I just sent out a google hangout invite > to > >> all > >> > > > pmc, > >> > > > > > > > >> committers > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> and > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > everyone I found working on a KIP. If I missed > >> anyone > >> > > > in > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > >> invite > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> please > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > let me know and can update it, np. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > We should do this every Tuesday @ 2pm Eastern > >> Time. > >> > > > Maybe > >> > > > > > we > >> > > > > > > > can > >> > > > > > > > >> get > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> INFRA > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > help to make a google account so we can manage > >> > > better? > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > To discuss > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > in progress and related JIRA that are > >> interdependent > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > > common > >> > > > > > > > >> work. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > ~ Joe Stein > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Jay Kreps < > >> > > > > > > > jay.kr...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> Let's stay on Google hangouts that will also > >> record > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > make > >> > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> sessions > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> available on youtube. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> -Jay > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Jeff > Holoman > >> < > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> jholo...@cloudera.com> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > Jay / Joe > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > We're happy to send out a Webex for this > >> purpose. > >> > > We > >> > > > > > could > >> > > > > > > > >> record > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> the > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > sessions if there is interest and publish > >> them > >> > > out. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > Thanks > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > Jeff > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Jay > Kreps < > >> > > > > > > > >> jay.kr...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > Let's try to get the technical hang-ups > >> sorted > >> > > > out, > >> > > > > > > > though. > >> > > > > > > > >> I > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> really > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > think > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > there is some benefit to live discussion > vs > >> > > > > writing. I > >> > > > > > > am > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> hopeful that > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> if > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > we post instructions and give ourselves a > >> few > >> > > > > attempts > >> > > > > > > we > >> > > > > > > > >> can > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> get it > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > working. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > Tuesday at that time would work for > >> me...any > >> > > > > > objections? > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > -Jay > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Joe > Stein > >> < > >> > > > > > > > >> joe.st...@stealth.ly > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > Weekly would be great maybe like every > >> > > Tuesday ~ > >> > > > > 1pm > >> > > > > > > ET > >> > > > > > > > / > >> > > > > > > > >> 10am > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> PT > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> ???? > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > I don't mind google hangout but there > is > >> > > always > >> > > > > some > >> > > > > > > > >> issue or > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> whatever > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > so > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > we know the apache irc channel works. > We > >> can > >> > > > start > >> > > > > > > there > >> > > > > > > > >> and > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> see how > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> it > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > goes? We can pull transcripts too and > >> > > associate > >> > > > to > >> > > > > > > > >> tickets if > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> need be > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > makes > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > it helpful for things. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > ~ Joestein > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Jay > >> Kreps < > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> jay.kr...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > We'd talked about doing a Google > >> Hangout to > >> > > > chat > >> > > > > > > about > >> > > > > > > > >> this. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> What > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > about > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > generalizing that a little > further...I > >> > > > actually > >> > > > > > > think > >> > > > > > > > it > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> would be > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > good > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > for > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > everyone spending a reasonable chunk > of > >> > > their > >> > > > > week > >> > > > > > > on > >> > > > > > > > >> Kafka > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> stuff > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> to > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > maybe > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > sync up once a week. I think we could > >> use > >> > > time > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > > talk > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> through > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> design > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > stuff, make sure we are on top of > code > >> > > > reviews, > >> > > > > > talk > >> > > > > > > > >> through > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> any > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > tricky > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > issues, etc. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > We can make it publicly available so > >> that > >> > > any > >> > > > > one > >> > > > > > > can > >> > > > > > > > >> follow > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> along > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > who > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > likes. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > Any interest in doing this? If so > I'll > >> try > >> > > to > >> > > > > set > >> > > > > > it > >> > > > > > > > up > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> starting > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> next > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > week. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > -Jay > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:57 AM, > Andrii > >> > > > > Biletskyi > >> > > > > > < > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > Hi all, > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > I've updated KIP page, fixed / > >> aligned > >> > > > > document > >> > > > > > > > >> structure. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> Also I > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > added > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > some > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > very initial proposal for > >> AdminClient so > >> > > we > >> > > > > have > >> > > > > > > > >> something > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> to > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> start > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > from > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > while > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > discussing the KIP. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-4+-+Command+line+and+centralized+administrative+operations > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > Andrii Biletskyi > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:01 PM, > >> Andrii > >> > > > > > Biletskyi > >> > > > > > > < > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > Jay, > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > Re error messages: you are right, > >> in > >> > > most > >> > > > > > cases > >> > > > > > > > >> client > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> will > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> have > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > enough > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > context to show descriptive error > >> > > message. > >> > > > > My > >> > > > > > > > >> concern is > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> that > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> we > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > will > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > have > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > add lots of new error codes for > >> each > >> > > > > possible > >> > > > > > > > >> error. Of > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> course, > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > we > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > could > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > reuse > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > some of existing like > >> > > > > > > UknownTopicOrPartitionCode, > >> > > > > > > > >> but we > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> will > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > also > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > need > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > add smth like: > >> TopicAlreadyExistsCode, > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> TopicConfigInvalid (both > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > for > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > topic > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > name and config, and probably > user > >> would > >> > > > > like > >> > > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > >> know > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> what > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > exactly > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > is wrong in his config), > >> > > > > > > InvalidReplicaAssignment, > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> InternalError > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > (e.g. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > zookeeper failure) etc. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > And this is only for > TopicCommand, > >> we > >> > > will > >> > > > > > also > >> > > > > > > > >> need to > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> add > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > similar > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > stuff > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > for > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > ReassignPartitions, > >> PreferredReplica. So > >> > > > > we'll > >> > > > > > > end > >> > > > > > > > >> up > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> with a > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > large > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > list > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > of > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > error codes, used only in Admin > >> > > protocol. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > Having said that, I agree my > >> proposal is > >> > > > not > >> > > > > > > > >> consistent > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> with > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > other > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > cases. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > Maybe we can find better solution > >> or > >> > > > > something > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> in-between. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > Re Hangout chat: I think it is a > >> great > >> > > > idea. > >> > > > > > > This > >> > > > > > > > >> way we > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> can > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> move > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > on > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > faster. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > Let's agree somehow on date/time > so > >> > > people > >> > > > > can > >> > > > > > > > join. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> Will work > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > for > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > me > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > this > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > and > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > next week almost anytime if > agreed > >> in > >> > > > > advance. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > Andrii > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:09 PM, > >> Jay > >> > > > Kreps < > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> jay.kr...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> Hey Andrii, > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> Generally we can do good error > >> handling > >> > > > > > without > >> > > > > > > > >> needing > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> custom > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > server-side > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> messages. I.e. generally the > >> client has > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > > > >> context to > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> know > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> that > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > if > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > it > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > got > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> an error that the topic doesn't > >> exist > >> > > to > >> > > > > say > >> > > > > > > > >> "Topic X > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> doesn't > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > exist" > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> rather > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> than "error code 14" (or > >> whatever). > >> > > Maybe > >> > > > > > there > >> > > > > > > > are > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> specific > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > cases > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > where > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> this is hard? If we want to add > >> > > > server-side > >> > > > > > > error > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> messages we > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > really > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > do > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> need to do this in a consistent > >> way > >> > > > across > >> > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > >> protocol. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> I still have a bunch of open > >> questions > >> > > > here > >> > > > > > > from > >> > > > > > > > my > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> previous > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > list. I > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > will > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> be out for the next few days for > >> Strata > >> > > > > > though. > >> > > > > > > > >> Maybe > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> we could > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > do > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > a > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > Google > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> Hangout chat on any open issues > >> some > >> > > time > >> > > > > > > towards > >> > > > > > > > >> the > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> end of > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > next > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > week > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > for > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> anyone interested in this > ticket? > >> I > >> > > have > >> > > > a > >> > > > > > > > feeling > >> > > > > > > > >> that > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> might > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > progress > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> things a little faster than > >> email--I > >> > > > think > >> > > > > we > >> > > > > > > > >> could talk > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> through > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > those > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> issues I brought up fairly > >> quickly... > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> -Jay > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:27 AM, > >> Andrii > >> > > > > > > > Biletskyi < > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly> > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > Hi all, > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > I'm trying to address some of > >> the > >> > > > issues > >> > > > > > > which > >> > > > > > > > >> were > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> mentioned > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > earlier > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> about > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > Admin RQ/RP format. One of > >> those was > >> > > > > about > >> > > > > > > > >> batching > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > operations. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > What > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > if > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> we > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > follow TopicCommand approach > >> and let > >> > > > > people > >> > > > > > > > >> specify > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> topic-name > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > by > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> regexp - > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > would that cover most of the > use > >> > > cases? > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > Secondly, is what information > >> should > >> > > we > >> > > > > > > > generally > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> provide in > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > Admin > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > responses. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > I realize that Admin commands > >> don't > >> > > > imply > >> > > > > > > they > >> > > > > > > > >> will > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> be used > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > only > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > in > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > CLI > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > but, > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > it seems to me, CLI is a very > >> > > important > >> > > > > > > client > >> > > > > > > > >> of this > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > feature. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > In > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > this > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > case, > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > seems logical, we would like > to > >> > > provide > >> > > > > > users > >> > > > > > > > >> with > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> rich > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > experience > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > in > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> terms > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > of > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > getting results / errors of > the > >> > > > executed > >> > > > > > > > >> commands. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> Usually > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> we > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > supply > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> with > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > responses only errorCode, > which > >> looks > >> > > > > very > >> > > > > > > > >> limiting, > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> in case > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > of > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > CLI > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > we > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> may > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > want to print human readable > >> error > >> > > > > > > description. > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > So, taking into account > >> previous item > >> > > > > about > >> > > > > > > > >> batching, > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> what > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> do > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > you > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > think > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > about > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > having smth like: > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > ('create' doesn't support > >> regexp) > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > CreateTopicRequest => > TopicName > >> > > > > Partitions > >> > > > > > > > >> Replicas > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > ReplicaAssignment > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > [Config] > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > CreateTopicResponse => > ErrorCode > >> > > > > > > > ErrorDescription > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > ErrorCode => int16 > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > ErrorDescription => string > >> (empty > >> > > if > >> > > > > > > > >> successful) > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> >>>> > >> > > > > > >> > AlterTopicRequest -> > >> TopicNameRegexp > >> > > > > > > > ... > > > > [Message clipped] >
