Hey Ismael, thanks for the comments. I've updated the wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-52%3A+Connector+Control+APIs .
-Jason On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Hi Jason, > > The suggested changes make sense. I think it's also worth clarifying the > documentation for the endpoints whose behaviour will remain the same. > > Ismael > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
