OK, in that case we can move the authorizer interface and related classes to existing org.apache.kafka.common.security.auth. I have updated KIP to reflect this.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > Yeah our take when we came up with this approach was pretty much what Gwen > is saying: > 1. In practice you either need the server or client to do anything and the > server depends on the client so bundling common and client doesn't hurt. > 2. Our experience with more granular jars (not in Kafka) was that although > it feels "cleaner" the complexity comes quickly for a few reasons. First it > gets hard to detangle the more granular packages (e.g. somebody needs to > use something in Utils in the authorizer package and then you no longer > have a dag). Second people end up mixing and matching in ways you didn't > anticipate which causes crazy heisenbugs (e.g. they depend on two different > versions of the client via transitive dependencies and somehow end up with > client version x and common version y due to duplicate entries on the class > path). > > I'm not really arguing that this approach is superior, I'm just saying this > is the current approach and that is the reason we went with it. > > So I could see splitting common and client and you could even further split > the producer and consumer and multiple sub-jars in common, and if this was > the approach I think a separate authorizer jar would make sense. But in the > current approach I think the authorizer stuff would be most consistent as a > public package in common. It is true that this means you build against more > stuff then needed but I'm not sure this has any negative implications in > practice. > > -Jay > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > But its just a compile-time dependency, right? > > Since the third-party-authorizer-implementation will be installed on a > > broker where the common classes will exist anyway. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > Jay, > > > > > > Thanks for the info. I think having common in clients jar makes sense, > as > > > their is no direct usage of it. i.e., without depending on or using > > > clients. Authorizer is a bit different, as third party implementations > do > > > not really need anything from clients or server, all they need is > > > Authorizer interface and related classes. If we move authorizer into > > > common, then third party implementations will have to depend on > clients. > > > Though third party implementations depending on clients is not a big > > > problem, right now they depend on core, I think it is cleaner to have > > > dependency on minimal modules. Would you agree? > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > >> I think it's great that we're moving the interface to java and fixing > > some > > >> of the naming foibles. > > >> > > >> This isn't explicit in the KIP which just refers to the java package > > name > > >> (I think), but it looks like you are proposing adding a new authorizer > > jar > > >> for this new package and adding it as a dependency for the client jar. > > This > > >> is a bit inconsistent with how we decided to package stuff when we > > started > > >> with the new clients so it'd be good to work that out. > > >> > > >> To date the categorization has been: > > >> 1. Anything which is just in the clients is in org.apache.clients > under > > >> clients/ > > >> 2. Anything which is in the server is kafka.* which is under core/ > > >> 3. Anything which is needed in both places (as it sounds like some > enums > > >> for authorization are?) is in common which is under clients/ > > >> > > >> org.apache.clients and org.apache.common are both pure java and > > dependency > > >> free other than the compression libraries and slf4j and are packaged > > into > > >> the kafka-clients.java, the server has it's own jar which has richer > > >> dependencies and depends on the client jar. > > >> > > >> There are other ways this could have been done--e.g. common could have > > been > > >> its own library or even split into multiple sub-libraries--but the > > decision > > >> at that time was just to keep it simple and hard to mess up. Based on > > the > > >> experience with the scala clients our plan was to be ultra-hostile to > > any > > >> added client dependencies. > > >> > > >> So I think if we're continuing this model we would put the shared > > >> authorizer code somewhere under > > >> clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/common as with the other shared > > >> authorizer. If we're moving away from this model we should probably > > rethink > > >> things and be consistent with this, at the very least splitting up > > common > > >> and clients. > > >> > > >> -Jay > > >> > > >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Jun/ Jay/ Gwen/ Harsha/ Ismael, > > >> > > > >> > As you guys have provided feedback on this earlier, could you review > > the > > >> > KIP again? I have updated the PR < > > >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/861> > > >> > as > > >> > well. > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Grant, > > >> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi Ashish, > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Thanks for the updates. I have a few questions below: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Move following interfaces to new package, > > >> org.apche.kafka.authorizer. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 1. Authorizer > > >> > >> > 2. Acl > > >> > >> > 3. Operation > > >> > >> > 4. PermissionType > > >> > >> > 5. Resource > > >> > >> > 6. ResourceType > > >> > >> > 7. KafkaPrincipal > > >> > >> > 8. Session > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> This means the client would be required to depend on the > authorizer > > >> > >> package > > >> > >> as a part of KIP-4. Another option is to have the client objects > in > > >> > >> common. > > >> > >> Have we ruled out leaving the interface in the core module? > > >> > >> > > >> > > With this entities that use Authorizer will depend only on > > Authorizer > > >> > > package. Third party implementations can have only the authorizer > > pkg > > >> as > > >> > > dependency. core and client modules will also have to depend on > the > > >> > > authorizer with this approach. Do you see any issue with it? > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Authorizer interface will be updated to remove getter naming > > >> convention. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Now that this is Java do we still want to change to the Scala > > naming > > >> > >> convention? > > >> > >> > > >> > > Even in clients module I do not see getter naming convention being > > >> > > followed, it is better to be consistent I guess. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Since we are completely rewriting the interface, can we add some > > (at > > >> > least > > >> > >> one to start with) standard exceptions that each method is > > recommended > > >> > to > > >> > >> use/throw? This will help the server in KIP-4 provide meaningful > > error > > >> > >> codes. KAFKA-3507 < > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3507> > > >> is > > >> > >> tracking it right now. > > >> > >> > > >> > > That should be good to have. Will include that. Thanks. > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Thanks, > > >> > >> Grant > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Ashish Singh < > asi...@cloudera.com > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > I have updated KIP-50 > > >> > >> > < > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-50+-+Move+Authorizer+to+a+separate+package > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > and PR <https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/861> as per > recent > > >> > >> > discussions. Please take a look. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > @Harsha / Don, it would be nice if you guys can review the KIP > > and > > >> PR > > >> > as > > >> > >> > well. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Ashish Singh < > > asi...@cloudera.com> > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Yes, Jun. I would like to try get option 2 in, if possible in > > >> 0.10. > > >> > I > > >> > >> am > > >> > >> > > not asking for delaying 0.10 for it, but some reviews and > early > > >> > >> feedback > > >> > >> > > would be great. At this point this is what I have in mind. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > 1. Move authorizer and related entities to its own package. > > Note > > >> > that > > >> > >> I > > >> > >> > am > > >> > >> > > proposing to drop scala interface completely. Ranger team is > > fine > > >> > >> with it > > >> > >> > > and I will update Sentry. > > >> > >> > > 2. The only new public method that will be added to > authorizer > > >> > >> interface > > >> > >> > > is description(). > > >> > >> > > 3. Update SimpleAclAuthorizer to use the new interface and > > >> classes. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> Ashish, > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> So, you want to take a shot at option 2 for 0.10.0? That's > > fine > > >> > with > > >> > >> me > > >> > >> > >> too. I am just not sure if we have enough time to think > > through > > >> the > > >> > >> > >> changes. > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> Jun > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Ashish Singh < > > >> asi...@cloudera.com > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > Hello Jun, > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > The 3rd option will require Apache Sentry to go GA with > > current > > >> > >> > >> authorizer > > >> > >> > >> > interface, and at this point it seems that the interface > > won't > > >> > last > > >> > >> > >> long. > > >> > >> > >> > Within a few months, Sentry will have to make a breaking > > >> change. > > >> > I > > >> > >> do > > >> > >> > >> > understand that Kafka should not have to delay its release > > due > > >> to > > >> > >> one > > >> > >> > of > > >> > >> > >> > the authorizer implementations. However, can we assist > > Sentry > > >> > >> users to > > >> > >> > >> > avoid that breaking upgrade? I think it is worth a shot. > If > > the > > >> > >> > changes > > >> > >> > >> are > > >> > >> > >> > not done by 0.10 code freeze, then sure lets punt it to > next > > >> > >> release. > > >> > >> > >> Does > > >> > >> > >> > this seem reasonable to you? > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Jun Rao < > j...@confluent.io > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > Ashish, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > A 3rd option is to in 0.10.0, just sanity check the > > principal > > >> > >> type > > >> > >> > in > > >> > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > >> > > implementation of addAcls/removeAcls of Authorizer, but > > don't > > >> > >> change > > >> > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > >> > > Authorizer api to add the getDescription() method. This > > fixes > > >> > the > > >> > >> > >> > immediate > > >> > >> > >> > > issue that an acl rule with the wrong principal type is > > >> > silently > > >> > >> > >> ignored. > > >> > >> > >> > > Knowing valid user types is nice, but not critical (we > can > > >> > >> include > > >> > >> > the > > >> > >> > >> > > supported user type in the > > UnsupportedPrincipalTypeException > > >> > >> thrown > > >> > >> > >> from > > >> > >> > >> > > addAcls/removeAcls). This will give us more time to > clean > > up > > >> > the > > >> > >> > >> > Authorizer > > >> > >> > >> > > api post 0.10.0. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > Thanks > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > Jun > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Ashish Singh < > > >> > >> asi...@cloudera.com> > > >> > >> > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Thanks for the input Don. One of the possible paths > for > > >> > Option > > >> > >> 2 > > >> > >> > is > > >> > >> > >> to > > >> > >> > >> > > > completely drop Scala interface, would that be Ok with > > you > > >> > >> folks? > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > On Thursday, April 7, 2016, Don Bosco Durai < > > >> > bo...@apache.org> > > >> > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Ranger team would prefer option #2. Right now, we > > have to > > >> > >> access > > >> > >> > >> some > > >> > >> > >> > > of > > >> > >> > >> > > > > the nested constants using constructs like > > >> Group$.MODULE$, > > >> > >> which > > >> > >> > >> is > > >> > >> > >> > not > > >> > >> > >> > > > > intuitive in Java. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Thanks > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Bosco > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > On 4/7/16, 4:30 PM, "Ashish Singh" < > > asi...@cloudera.com > > >> > >> > >> > > <javascript:;>> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >Harsha/ Don, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >Are you guys OK with option 2? I am not aware of > all > > the > > >> > >> > existing > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >authorizer implementations, however ranger has one > > for > > >> > sure. > > >> > >> > >> Getting > > >> > >> > >> > > > > direct > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >feedback from you guys will be really valuable. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Ismael Juma < > > >> > >> ism...@juma.me.uk > > >> > >> > >> > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> Hi Don, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> This is true in Java 7, but Java 8 introduces > > default > > >> > >> methods > > >> > >> > >> and > > >> > >> > >> > > this > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> workaround is no longer required. During the > > >> Interceptor > > >> > >> KIP > > >> > >> > >> > > > > discussion, it > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> was decided that it was fine to stick to > interfaces > > >> > given > > >> > >> > that > > >> > >> > >> we > > >> > >> > >> > > are > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> likely to move to Java 8 in the nearish future > > >> (probably > > >> > >> no > > >> > >> > >> later > > >> > >> > >> > > than > > >> > >> > >> > > > > the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> Java 9 release). > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> Ismael > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Don Bosco Durai > < > > >> > >> > >> > bo...@apache.org > > >> > >> > >> > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > Hi Ashish > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > If we are going by option #2, then I can > suggest > > we > > >> > >> give an > > >> > >> > >> > > abstract > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > implementation of the Interface and recommend > > anyone > > >> > >> > >> > implementing > > >> > >> > >> > > > > their > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> own > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > plugin to extend from the abstract class, > rather > > >> than > > >> > >> > >> implement > > >> > >> > >> > > the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > interface? > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > The advantage is, in the future if we add add > any > > >> new > > >> > >> > >> methods in > > >> > >> > >> > > the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > Interface (e.g. Similar to getDescription()), > > then > > >> we > > >> > >> can > > >> > >> > >> give a > > >> > >> > >> > > > dummy > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > implementation of the new method and this won’t > > >> break > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > >> > > > compilation > > >> > >> > >> > > > > of > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > any external implementation. Else over the time > > it > > >> > will > > >> > >> be > > >> > >> > >> > > > challenging > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> for > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > anyone customizing the implementation to keep > > track > > >> of > > >> > >> > >> changes > > >> > >> > >> > to > > >> > >> > >> > > > the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > Interface. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > Thanks > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > Bosco > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > On 4/7/16, 11:21 AM, "Ashish Singh" < > > >> > >> asi...@cloudera.com > > >> > >> > >> > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >Hello Harsha, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Harsha < > > >> > >> m...@harsha.io > > >> > >> > >> > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >"My only ask is to have this in 0.10. As Jay > > >> pointed > > >> > >> out, > > >> > >> > >> right > > >> > >> > >> > > now > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> there > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> are not many implementations out there, we > > might > > >> > >> want to > > >> > >> > >> fix > > >> > >> > >> > it > > >> > >> > >> > > > > ASAP." > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Probably there aren't many implementations > but > > >> > there > > >> > >> are > > >> > >> > >> lot > > >> > >> > >> > of > > >> > >> > >> > > > > users > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> using these implementations in production > > >> clusters. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Isn't this going to break the rolling > upgrade? > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >It will and it is a concern, in my previous > > mail I > > >> > have > > >> > >> > >> > mentioned > > >> > >> > >> > > > > this > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> as > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >an issue if we choose to go this route. > > However, if > > >> > we > > >> > >> > >> actually > > >> > >> > >> > > > > decide > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> to > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >do this, I would say it is better to do it > > sooner > > >> > than > > >> > >> > >> later, > > >> > >> > >> > as > > >> > >> > >> > > > > fewer > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >implementations will be affected. Below is > > excerpt > > >> > >> from my > > >> > >> > >> > > previous > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> mail. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >Increase scope of KIP-50 to move authorizer > and > > >> > related > > >> > >> > >> classes > > >> > >> > >> > > to > > >> > >> > >> > > > a > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >separate package. The new package will have > java > > >> > >> > interface. > > >> > >> > >> > This > > >> > >> > >> > > > will > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > allow > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >implementations to not depend on kafka core > and > > >> just > > >> > on > > >> > >> > >> > > authorizer > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > package, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >make authorization interface follow kafka’s > > coding > > >> > >> > standards > > >> > >> > >> > and > > >> > >> > >> > > > will > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > allow > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >java implementations to be cleaner. We can > > either > > >> > >> > completely > > >> > >> > >> > drop > > >> > >> > >> > > > > scala > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >interface, which might be a pain for existing > > >> > >> > >> implementations, > > >> > >> > >> > or > > >> > >> > >> > > > we > > >> > >> > >> > > > > can > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >have scala interface wrap java interface. > Later > > >> > allows > > >> > >> a > > >> > >> > >> > cleaner > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >deprecation path for existing scala authorizer > > >> > >> interface, > > >> > >> > >> > however > > >> > >> > >> > > > it > > >> > >> > >> > > > > may > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > or > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >may not be feasible as Kafka server will have > to > > >> > >> somehow > > >> > >> > >> decide > > >> > >> > >> > > > which > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >interface it should be looking for while > loading > > >> > >> > authorizer > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > implementation, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >this can probably be solved with a config or > > some > > >> > >> > >> reflection. > > >> > >> > >> > If > > >> > >> > >> > > we > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> choose > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >to go this route, I can dig deeper. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >If we go with option 2 and commit on getting > > this > > >> in > > >> > >> ASAP, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > preferably in > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >0.10, there will be fewer implementations that > > will > > >> > be > > >> > >> > >> > affected. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >and also moving to Java , > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> a authorizer implementation going to run > > inside a > > >> > >> > >> KafkaBroker > > >> > >> > >> > > > and I > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> don't see why this is necessary to move to > > >> clients > > >> > >> > >> package. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Are we planning on introducing common module > > to > > >> > have > > >> > >> it > > >> > >> > >> > > > > independent of > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> broker and client code? > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >Yes, I think that would take away the > > requirement > > >> of > > >> > >> > >> depending > > >> > >> > >> > on > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Kafka > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >core from authorizer implementations. Do you > > >> suggest > > >> > >> > >> otherwise? > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> -Harsha > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016, at 10:52 AM, Ashish > Singh > > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > We might want to take a call here. > Following > > >> are > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > >> > options. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 1. Let KIP-50 be the way it is, i.e., > > just > > >> add > > >> > >> > >> > > > > getDescription() > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> to > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > existing scala authorizer interface. It > > will > > >> > >> break > > >> > >> > >> > binary > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > compatibility > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > (only when using CLI and/or > AdminCommand > > >> from > > >> > >= > > >> > >> > 0.10 > > >> > >> > >> > > > against > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > authorizer > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > implementations based on 0.9.). If we > go > > >> this > > >> > >> > route, > > >> > >> > >> it > > >> > >> > >> > > is a > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > simpler > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > change > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > and existing implementations won’t have > > to > > >> > >> change > > >> > >> > >> > anything > > >> > >> > >> > > > on > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> their > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > end. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > 2. Increase scope of KIP-50 to move > > >> authorizer > > >> > >> and > > >> > >> > >> > related > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> classes > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > to > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > a > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > separate package. The new package will > > have > > >> > java > > >> > >> > >> > > interface. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > This > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > will > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > allow > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > implementations to not depend on kafka > > core > > >> > and > > >> > >> > just > > >> > >> > >> on > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> authorizer > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > package, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > make authorization interface follow > > kafka’s > > >> > >> coding > > >> > >> > >> > > standards > > >> > >> > >> > > > > and > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > will > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > allow > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > java implementations to be cleaner. We > > can > > >> > >> either > > >> > >> > >> > > completely > > >> > >> > >> > > > > drop > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > scala > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > interface, which might be a pain for > > >> existing > > >> > >> > >> > > > > implementations, or > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > we > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > can > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > have scala interface wrap java > interface. > > >> > Later > > >> > >> > >> allows a > > >> > >> > >> > > > > cleaner > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > deprecation path for existing scala > > >> authorizer > > >> > >> > >> > interface, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > however > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > it > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > may or > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > may not be feasible as Kafka server > will > > >> have > > >> > to > > >> > >> > >> somehow > > >> > >> > >> > > > > decide > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > which > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > interface it should be looking for > while > > >> > loading > > >> > >> > >> > > authorizer > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > implementation, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > this can probably be solved with a > > config or > > >> > >> some > > >> > >> > >> > > > reflection. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > If > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> we > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > choose > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > to go this route, I can dig deeper. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > If we decide to go with option 1, I think > it > > >> > would > > >> > >> be > > >> > >> > >> fair > > >> > >> > >> > to > > >> > >> > >> > > > say > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> that > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > scala authorizer interface will be around > > for > > >> > some > > >> > >> > >> time, as > > >> > >> > >> > > > there > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > will be > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > more implementations relying on it. If we > go > > >> with > > >> > >> > >> option 2 > > >> > >> > >> > > and > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> commit > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > on > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > getting this in ASAP, preferably in 0.10, > > there > > >> > >> will > > >> > >> > be > > >> > >> > >> > fewer > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > implementations that will be affected. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > *Another thing to notice is that scala > > >> authorizer > > >> > >> > >> interface > > >> > >> > >> > > is > > >> > >> > >> > > > > not > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > annotated as unstable.* > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Ashish > > Singh < > > >> > >> > >> > > > > asi...@cloudera.com <javascript:;>> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I see value in minimizing breaking > changes > > >> and > > >> > I > > >> > >> do > > >> > >> > >> not > > >> > >> > >> > > > oppose > > >> > >> > >> > > > > the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> idea of > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > increasing scope of KIP-50 to move auth > > >> > >> interface to > > >> > >> > >> > java. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > As authorizer implementations do not > > really > > >> > need > > >> > >> to > > >> > >> > >> > depend > > >> > >> > >> > > on > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> Kafka > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> core, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > I would suggest that we keep authorizer > > >> > interface > > >> > >> > and > > >> > >> > >> its > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> components > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> in a > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > separate package. I share the concern > that > > >> > right > > >> > >> now > > >> > >> > >> > using > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> Resource, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Operation, etc, in java implementations > is > > >> > >> messy. I > > >> > >> > >> had > > >> > >> > >> > to > > >> > >> > >> > > > deal > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> with > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> lot of > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > it while writing Apache Sentry plugin. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > My only ask is to have this in 0.10. As > > Jay > > >> > >> pointed > > >> > >> > >> out, > > >> > >> > >> > > > right > > >> > >> > >> > > > > now > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> there > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > are not many implementations out there, > we > > >> > might > > >> > >> > want > > >> > >> > >> to > > >> > >> > >> > > fix > > >> > >> > >> > > > it > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > ASAP. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> I can > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > only speak of Sentry integration and I > > think > > >> > 0.10 > > >> > >> > >> will be > > >> > >> > >> > > the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > best > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > for > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> such > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > a change, as I should be able to adopt > the > > >> > >> changes > > >> > >> > in > > >> > >> > >> > > Sentry > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> integration > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > before a lot of users start using it. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Ismael > > Juma < > > >> > >> > >> > > > ism...@juma.me.uk > > >> > >> > >> > > > > <javascript:;>> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> It is small, but breaks binary > > >> compatibility. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> Ismael > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Grant > > Henke > > >> < > > >> > >> > >> > > > > ghe...@cloudera.com <javascript:;> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > KIP-50 as defined is very small. I > > don't > > >> see > > >> > >> any > > >> > >> > >> harm > > >> > >> > >> > in > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> putting > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > it > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> in > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> as > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > is and then tackling the follow up > > work. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:16 AM, > Ismael > > >> > Juma < > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> ism...@juma.me.uk <javascript:;>> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > Thanks Grant. I wonder if KIP-50 > > should > > >> > >> just be > > >> > >> > >> done > > >> > >> > >> > > as > > >> > >> > >> > > > > part > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> of > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> this > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > work. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > Ismael > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:12 PM, > Grant > > >> > Henke > > >> > >> < > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > ghe...@cloudera.com <javascript:;>> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > My work with KIP-4 found that > many > > of > > >> > the > > >> > >> > Scala > > >> > >> > >> > > > classes > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> used > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > in > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Authorizer interface are needed > in > > the > > >> > >> > Clients > > >> > >> > >> > > package > > >> > >> > >> > > > > when > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> adding > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > various ACL requests and > > responses. I > > >> > also > > >> > >> > >> found > > >> > >> > >> > > that > > >> > >> > >> > > > we > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > don't > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> have > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > standard Exceptions defined for > the > > >> > >> > authorizer > > >> > >> > >> > > > > interface. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > This > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> means > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > that > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > when I add the Authorizer calls > to > > the > > >> > >> broker > > >> > >> > >> and > > >> > >> > >> > > wire > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> protocols all > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > exceptions will be reported as an > > >> > "Unknown > > >> > >> > >> Error" > > >> > >> > >> > > back > > >> > >> > >> > > > > to > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> user > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> via > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > wire protocol. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > I have written more about it on > the > > >> > KIP-4 > > >> > >> > wiki > > >> > >> > >> and > > >> > >> > >> > > > > created > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> jiras to > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > track > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > those issues (See below). I think > > we > > >> > >> should > > >> > >> > >> wrap > > >> > >> > >> > up > > >> > >> > >> > > > this > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> KIP > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > as > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> is > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> and > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > tackle the Java/Exception changes > > as a > > >> > >> part > > >> > >> > of > > >> > >> > >> > those > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > jiras/kips. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > - KIP-4 "Follow Up Changes" > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > < > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-4+-+Command+line+and+centralized+administrative+operations#KIP-4-Commandlineandcentralizedadministrativeoperations-FollowUpChangesfollow-up-changes > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > - KAFKA-3509 < > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3509 > > >> >: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Provide > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > an Authorizer interface using > > the > > >> > Java > > >> > >> > >> client > > >> > >> > >> > > > > enumerator > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> classes > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > - KAFKA-3507 < > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3507 > > >> >: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > Define > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > standard exceptions for the > > >> > Authorizer > > >> > >> > >> > interface > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Thank you, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Grant > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:58 AM, > > Jay > > >> > >> Kreps < > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> j...@confluent.io <javascript:;> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Hey Ismael, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Yeah I think this is a minor > > >> > cleanliness > > >> > >> > >> thing. > > >> > >> > >> > > > Since > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> this > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > is > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> kind > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > of a > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > power user interface I don't > feel > > >> > >> strongly > > >> > >> > >> > either > > >> > >> > >> > > > way. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > My motivation with Scala is > just > > >> that > > >> > >> we've > > >> > >> > >> > tried > > >> > >> > >> > > to > > >> > >> > >> > > > > move > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > to > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> having > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > public interfaces be Java, and > > as a > > >> > >> group > > >> > >> > we > > >> > >> > >> > > > > definitely > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> struggled > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> a > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > lot > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > with understanding and > > maintaining > > >> > Scala > > >> > >> > >> > > > > compatibility in > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> older > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > clients. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > -Jay > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:46 > PM, > > >> > Ismael > > >> > >> > Juma > > >> > >> > >> < > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> ism...@juma.me.uk <javascript:;>> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > Hi Jay, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:48 > AM, > > >> Jay > > >> > >> > Kreps < > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > j...@confluent.io <javascript:;> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Given that we're breaking > > >> > >> compatibility > > >> > >> > >> > anyway > > >> > >> > >> > > > > should > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > we: > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > We are not breaking source > > >> > >> compatibility > > >> > >> > >> since > > >> > >> > >> > > the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > new > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> method > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> has a > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > default > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > implementation. I take it > that > > you > > >> > >> mean > > >> > >> > >> binary > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> compatibility? > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > 1. Remove the get prefix on > > this > > >> > >> method > > >> > >> > >> and > > >> > >> > >> > > the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > existing > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> one > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > which > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > violate > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > our own code style > guidelines > > >> > (Oops! > > >> > >> > >> Kind of > > >> > >> > >> > > sad > > >> > >> > >> > > > > we > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > went > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> through > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > whole > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > KIP process and no one even > > >> > flagged > > >> > >> > this) > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > I did flag this during the > > >> > discussion > > >> > >> and > > >> > >> > >> > Ashish > > >> > >> > >> > > > > said > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> he > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> would > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > change > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > it > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > if > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > other people felt that it > > should > > >> be > > >> > >> > >> changed. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > 2. Move the interface out > of > > >> scala > > >> > >> to > > >> > >> > be > > >> > >> > >> a > > >> > >> > >> > > > normal > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> Java > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> interface > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > This breaks source > > compatibility > > >> > but > > >> > >> > >> > probably > > >> > >> > >> > > > > what we > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> should > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> have > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > done > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > originally I suspect. > > Probably > > >> > there > > >> > >> > are > > >> > >> > >> few > > >> > >> > >> > > > > enough > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > implementations > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > of > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > this > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > that it is better to just > rip > > >> the > > >> > >> > bandaid > > >> > >> > >> > off. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > Can you please explain the > > >> > >> motivation? It > > >> > >> > >> did > > >> > >> > >> > > come > > >> > >> > >> > > > > up > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> in > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> previous > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > discussions that some things > > like > > >> > >> > Operation > > >> > >> > >> > and > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > ResourceType > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> should > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > be > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > in > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > the clients library, but not > > >> > >> Authorizer > > >> > >> > >> > itself. > > >> > >> > >> > > > Are > > >> > >> > >> > > > > we > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> saying > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> that > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > any > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > pluggable interface should be > > in > > >> > Java > > >> > >> so > > >> > >> > >> that > > >> > >> > >> > > > users > > >> > >> > >> > > > > can > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> implement > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > it > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > without including the Scala > > >> library? > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > Grant, you originally > suggested > > >> that > > >> > >> some > > >> > >> > >> > things > > >> > >> > >> > > > > would > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > have > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> to > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> be > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > in > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > the > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > Java side as well. Can you > > please > > >> > >> > >> elaborate on > > >> > >> > >> > > > this? > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > Ismael > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > -- > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Grant Henke > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > gr...@cloudera.com > <javascript:;> > > | > > >> > >> > >> > > > twitter.com/gchenke > > >> > >> > >> > > > > | > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > -- > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > Grant Henke > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > Software Engineer | Cloudera > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > gr...@cloudera.com <javascript:;> | > > >> > >> > >> > twitter.com/gchenke > > >> > >> > >> > > | > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > -- > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Regards, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Ashish > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > -- > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Regards, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > Ashish > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >-- > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >Regards, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >Ashish > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >-- > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >Regards, > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >Ashish > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > -- > > >> > >> > >> > > > Ashish 🎤h > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > -- > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > Regards, > > >> > >> > >> > Ashish > > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > -- > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Regards, > > >> > >> > > Ashish > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > -- > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > Regards, > > >> > >> > Ashish > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> -- > > >> > >> Grant Henke > > >> > >> Software Engineer | Cloudera > > >> > >> gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | > > linkedin.com/in/granthenke > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > > > >> > > Regards, > > >> > > Ashish > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > > > >> > Regards, > > >> > Ashish > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Regards, > > > Ashish > > > > > -- Regards, Ashish
