Hi Harsha, If you open this link
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposa ls All the KIPs are the child page of this page which you can see from the left bar. Only KIP-22 is missing. It looks you created it as a child page of https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Index Thanks. Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On 5/12/15, 3:12 PM, "Sriharsha Chintalapani" <ka...@harsha.io> wrote: >Hi Jiangjie, > Its under >https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-+22++Expose+a+Partit >ioner+interface+in+the+new+producer >I checked other KIPS they are under /KAFKA as well. > >Thanks, >Harsha >On May 12, 2015 at 2:12:30 PM, Jiangjie Qin (j...@linkedin.com.invalid) >wrote: > >Hey Harsha, > >It looks you created the KIP page at wrong place. . . Can you move the >page to a child page of >https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Propos >a >ls > >Thanks. > >Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > >On 5/6/15, 6:12 PM, "Harsha" <ka...@harsha.io> wrote: > >>Thanks for the review Joel. I agree don't need a init method we can use >>configure. I'll update the KIP. >>-Harsha >> >>On Wed, May 6, 2015, at 04:45 PM, Joel Koshy wrote: >>> +1 with a minor comment: do we need an init method given it extends >>> Configurable? >>> >>> Also, can you move this wiki out of drafts and add it to the table in >>> >>>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Prop >>>o >>>sals? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Joel >>> >>> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 07:46:46AM -0700, Sriharsha Chintalapani >>>wrote: >>> > Thanks Jay. I removed partitioner.metadata from KIP. I¹ll send an >>>updated patch. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Harsha >>> > Sent with Airmail >>> > >>> > On May 5, 2015 at 6:31:47 AM, Sriharsha Chintalapani >>>(harsh...@fastmail.fm) wrote: >>> > >>> > Thanks for the comments everyone. >>> > Hi Jay, >>> > I do have a question regarding configurable interface on how to >>>pass a Map<String, ?> properties. I couldn¹t find any other classes >>>using it. JMX reporter overrides it but doesn¹t implement it. So with >>>configurable partitioner how can a user pass in partitioner >>>configuration since its getting instantiated within the producer. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Harsha >>> > >>> > >>> > On May 4, 2015 at 10:36:45 AM, Jay Kreps (jay.kr...@gmail.com) >>>wrote: >>> > >>> > Hey Harsha, >>> > >>> > That proposal sounds good. One minor thing--I don't think we need to >>> >>>have >>> > the partitioner.metadata property. Our reason for using string >>>properties >>> > is exactly to make config extensible at runtime. So a given >>>partitioner can >>> > add whatever properties make sense using the configure() api it >>>defines. >>> > >>> > -Jay >>> > >>> > On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Harsha <ka...@harsha.io> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Thanks Jay & Gianmarco for the comments. I picked the option A, if >>> >>>user >>> > > sends a partition id than it will applied and partitioner.class >>>method >>> > > will only called if partition id is null . >>> > > Please take a look at the updated KIP here >>> > > >>> > > >>>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-+22+-+Expose+a+Par >>>t >>>itioner+interface+in+the+new+producer >>> > > . Let me know if you see anything missing. >>> > > >>> > > Thanks, >>> > > Harsha >>> > > >>> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015, at 02:15 AM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales >>>wrote: >>> > > > Hi, >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Here are the questions I think we should consider: >>> > > > > 1. Do we need this at all given that we have the partition >>>argument in >>> > > > > ProducerRecord which gives full control? I think we do need it >>> >>>because >>> > > this >>> > > > > is a way to plug in a different partitioning strategy at run >>>time and >>> > > do it >>> > > > > in a fairly transparent way. >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Yes, we need it if we want to support different partitioning >>>strategies >>> > > > inside Kafka rather than requiring the user to code them >>>externally. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > 3. Do we need to add the value? I suspect people will have >>>uses >>>for >>> > > > > computing something off a few fields in the value to choose >>>the >>> > > partition. >>> > > > > This would be useful in cases where the key was being used for >>> >>>log >>> > > > > compaction purposes and did not contain the full information >>>for >>> > > computing >>> > > > > the partition. >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > I am not entirely sure about this. I guess that most >>>partitioners >>>should >>> > > > not use it. >>> > > > I think it makes it easier to reason about the system if the >>>partitioner >>> > > > only works on the key. >>> > > > Hoever, if the value (and its serialization) are already >>>available, there >>> > > > is not much harm in passing them along. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > 4. This interface doesn't include either an init() or close() >>>method. >>> > > It >>> > > > > should implement Closable and Configurable, right? >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Right now the only application I can think of to have an init() >>>and >>> > > > close() >>> > > > is to read some state information (e.g., load information) that >>>is >>> > > > published on some external distributed storage (e.g., zookeeper) >>> >>>by the >>> > > > brokers. >>> > > > It might be useful also for reconfiguration and state migration. >>> >>> > > > >>> > > > I think it's not a very common use case right now, but if the >>>added >>> > > > complexity is not too much it might be worth to have support for >>> >>>these >>> > > > methods. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > 5. What happens if the user both sets the partition id in the >>> > > > > ProducerRecord and sets a partitioner? Does the partition id >>>just get >>> > > > > passed in to the partitioner (as sort of implied in this >>>interface?). >>> > > This >>> > > > > is a bit weird since if you pass in the partition id you kind >>>of >>> > > expect it >>> > > > > to get used, right? Or is it the case that if you specify a >>>partition >>> > > the >>> > > > > partitioner isn't used at all (in which case no point in >>>including >>> > > > > partition in the Partitioner api). >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > The user should be able to override the partitioner on a >>>per-record basis >>> > > > by explicitly setting the partition id. >>> > > > I don't think it makes sense for the partitioners to take >>>"hints" >>>on the >>> > > > partition. >>> > > > >>> > > > I would even go the extra step, and have a default logic that >>>accepts >>> > > > both >>> > > > key and partition id (current interface) and calls partition() >>>only if >>> > > > the >>> > > > partition id is not set. The partition() method does *not* take >>>the >>> > > > partition ID as input (only key-value). >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > Cheers, >>> > > > -- >>> > > > Gianmarco >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > Cheers, >>> > > > > >>> > > > > -Jay >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Sriharsha Chintalapani < >>> > > ka...@harsha.io> >>> > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > Hi, >>> > > > > > Here is the KIP for adding a partitioner interface for >>> > > producer. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >>>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-+22+-+Expose+a+Par >>>t >>>itioner+interface+in+the+new+producer >>> > > > > > There is one open question about how interface should look >>>like. >>> > > Please >>> > > > > > take a look and let me know if you prefer one way or the >>>other. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Thanks, >>> > > > > > Harsha >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >>> >
