Hey Ismael, The intent is only to indicate that we've accepted the request, so the no-op case has no separate response code in the current proposal. The question is whether that is sufficient? For pause/resume, you can verify the effect using the status endpoint which seems OK, but restart is trickier since the final state of the task may match the current state. One option is to make the restart API synchronous. In that case, successful completion of the request would indicate a successful restart of the task. If there is another restart in progress, maybe we could just return 409 (Conflict) so the client knows a restart is already in progress. I considered doing something more complex like blocking until the other restart had completed, but it seems simpler to let the client retry if it wants to. Does that make sense?
Thanks, Jason On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Thank you Jason. One more question, the response codes are described as for > all endpoints: > > Response Codes: 202 (Accepted) on successful restart initiation, 404 if the > connector doesn't exist > > What is the response code in the no-op case? > > Ismael > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > Hey Ismael, thanks for having a look. I've changed pause/resume to use > PUT. > > > > -Jason > > > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava <e...@confluent.io > > > > wrote: > > > > > Ismael, > > > > > > Great point. Pause and resume should be idempotent and actually > represent > > > updating a resource that gets written to Kafka (although I must admit I > > > don't know if the use of 202/Accepted should affect this at all), the > > > restart endpoints seem a bit different as they are one-off immediate > > > commands. > > > > > > -Ewen > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > > > Do I understand correctly that these requests are idempotent? If so, > > why > > > > are they POSTs instead of PUTs? > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi All, I've written a short KIP to add control APIs to Kafka > Connect > > > to > > > > > make administration easier: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-52%3A+Connector+Control+APIs > > > > > . > > > > > Please let me know your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > Ewen > > > > > >
