Since this KIP affects message format, wire protocol, apis, I think it's worth spending a bit more time to nail down the concrete use cases. It would be bad if we add this feature, but when start implementing it for say mirroring, we then realize that header is not the best approach. Initially, I thought I was convinced of the use cases of headers and was trying to write down a few use cases to convince others. That's when I became less certain. For me to be convinced, I just want to see two strong use cases (instead of 10 maybe use cases) in the third-party space. The reason is that when we discussed the use cases within a company, often it ends with "we can't force everyone to use this standard since we may have to integrate with third-party tools".
At present, I am not sure why headers are useful for things like schemaId or encryption. In order to do anything useful to the value, one needs to know the schemaId or how data is encrypted, but header is optional. But, I can be convinced if someone (Radai, Sean, Todd?) provides more details on the argument. I am not very sure header is the best approach for mirroring either. If someone has thought about this more, I'd be happy to hear. I can see the data lineage use case. I am just not sure how widely applicable this is. If someone familiar with this space can justify this is a significant use case, say in the finance industry, this would be a strong use case. I can see the auditing use case. I am just not sure if a native producer id solves that problem. If there are additional metadata that's worth collecting but not covered by the producer id, that would make this a strong use case. Thanks, Jun On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:41 PM, radai <radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> wrote: > this KIP is about enabling headers, nothing more nothing less - so no, > broker-side use of headers is not in the KIP scope. > > obviously though, once you have headers potential use cases could include > broker-side header-aware interceptors (which would be the topic of other > future KIPs). > > a trivially clear use case (to me) would be using such broker-side > interceptors to enforce compliance with organizational policies - it would > make our SREs lives much easier if instead of retroactively discovering > "rogue" topics/users those messages would have been rejected up-front. > > the kafka broker code is lacking any such extensibility support (beyond > maybe authorizer) which is why these use cases were left out of the "case > for headers" doc - broker extensibility is a separate discussion. > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Woah, I wasn't aware this is something we'll do. It wasn't in the KIP, > > right? > > > > I guess we could do it the same way ACLs currently work. > > I had in mind something that will allow admins to apply rules to the > > new create/delete/config topic APIs. So Todd can decide to reject > > "create topic" requests that ask for more than 40 partitions, or > > require exactly 3 replicas, or no more than 50GB partition size, etc. > > > > ACLs were added a bit ad-hoc, if we are planning to apply more rules > > to requests (and I think we should), we may want a bit more generic > > design around that. > > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 7:16 AM, radai <radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > "wouldn't you be in the business of making sure everyone uses them > > > properly?" > > > > > > thats where a broker-side plugin would come handy - any incoming > message > > > that does not conform to org policy (read - does not have the proper > > > headers) gets thrown out (with an error returned to user) > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Todd Palino <tpal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Come on, I’ve done at least 2 talks on this one :) > > >> > > >> Producing counts to a topic is part of it, but that’s only part. So > you > > >> count you have 100 messages in topic A. When you mirror topic A to > > another > > >> cluster, you have 99 messages. Where was your problem? Or worse, you > > have > > >> 100 messages, but one producer duplicated messages and another one > lost > > >> messages. You need details about where the message came from in order > to > > >> pinpoint problems when they happen. Source producer info, where it was > > >> produced into your infrastructure, and when it was produced. This > > requires > > >> you to add the information to the message. > > >> > > >> And yes, you still need to maintain your clients. So maybe my original > > >> example was not the best. My thoughts on not wanting to be responsible > > for > > >> message formats stands, because that’s very much separate from the > > client. > > >> As you know, we have our own internal client library that can insert > the > > >> right headers, and right now inserts the right audit information into > > the > > >> message fields. If they exist, and assuming the message is Avro > encoded. > > >> What if someone wants to use JSON instead for a good reason? What if > > user X > > >> wants to encrypt messages, but user Y does not? Maintaining the client > > >> library is still much easier than maintaining the message formats. > > >> > > >> -Todd > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Based on your last sentence, consider me convinced :) > > >> > > > >> > I get why headers are critical for Mirroring (you need tags to > prevent > > >> > loops and sometimes to route messages to the correct destination). > > >> > But why do you need headers to audit? We are auditing by producing > > >> > counts to a side topic (and I was under the impression you do the > > >> > same), so we never need to modify the message. > > >> > > > >> > Another thing - after we added headers, wouldn't you be in the > > >> > business of making sure everyone uses them properly? Making sure > > >> > everyone includes the right headers you need, not using the header > > >> > names you intend to use, etc. I don't think the "policing" business > > >> > will ever go away. > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Todd Palino <tpal...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > Got it. As an ops guy, I'm not very happy with the workaround. > Avro > > >> means > > >> > > that I have to be concerned with the format of the messages in > > order to > > >> > run > > >> > > the infrastructure (audit, mirroring, etc.). That means that I > have > > to > > >> > > handle the schemas, and I have to enforce rules about good > formats. > > >> This > > >> > is > > >> > > not something I want to be in the business of, because I should be > > able > > >> > to > > >> > > run a service infrastructure without needing to be in the weeds of > > >> > dealing > > >> > > with customer data formats. > > >> > > > > >> > > Trust me, a sizable portion of my support time is spent dealing > with > > >> > schema > > >> > > issues. I really would like to get away from that. Maybe I'd have > > more > > >> > time > > >> > > for other hobbies. Like writing. ;) > > >> > > > > >> > > -Todd > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:04 PM Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> I'm pretty satisfied with the current workarounds (Avro container > > >> > >> format), so I'm not too excited about the extra work required to > do > > >> > >> headers in Kafka. I absolutely don't mind it if you do it... > > >> > >> I think the Apache convention for "good idea, but not willing to > > put > > >> > >> any work toward it" is +0.5? anyway, that's what I was trying to > > >> > >> convey :) > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Todd Palino <tpal...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > Well I guess my question for you, then, is what is holding you > > back > > >> > from > > >> > >> > full support for headers? What’s the bit that you’re missing > that > > >> has > > >> > you > > >> > >> > under a full +1? > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > -Todd > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Gwen Shapira < > g...@confluent.io> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> >> I know why people who support headers support them, and I've > > seen > > >> > what > > >> > >> >> the discussion is like. > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> This is why I'm asking people who are against headers > > (especially > > >> > >> >> committers) what will make them change their mind - so we can > > get > > >> > this > > >> > >> >> part over one way or another. > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> If I sound frustrated it is not at Radai, Jun or you (Todd)... > > I am > > >> > >> >> just looking for something concrete we can do to move the > > >> discussion > > >> > >> >> along to the yummy design details (which is the argument I > > really > > >> am > > >> > >> >> looking forward to). > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Todd Palino < > tpal...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> >> > So, Gwen, to your question (even though I’m not a > > committer)... > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > I have always been a strong supporter of introducing the > > concept > > >> > of an > > >> > >> >> > envelope to messages, which headers accomplishes. The > message > > key > > >> > is > > >> > >> >> > already an example of a piece of envelope information. By > > >> > providing a > > >> > >> >> means > > >> > >> >> > to do this within Kafka itself, and not relying on use-case > > >> > specific > > >> > >> >> > implementations, you make it much easier for components to > > >> > >> interoperate. > > >> > >> >> It > > >> > >> >> > simplifies development of all these things (message routing, > > >> > auditing, > > >> > >> >> > encryption, etc.) because each one does not have to reinvent > > the > > >> > >> wheel. > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > It also makes it much easier from a client point of view if > > the > > >> > >> headers > > >> > >> >> are > > >> > >> >> > defined as part of the protocol and/or message format in > > general > > >> > >> because > > >> > >> >> > you can easily produce and consume messages without having > to > > >> take > > >> > >> into > > >> > >> >> > account specific cases. For example, I want to route > messages, > > >> but > > >> > >> >> client A > > >> > >> >> > doesn’t support the way audit implemented headers, and > client > > B > > >> > >> doesn’t > > >> > >> >> > support the way encryption or routing implemented headers, > so > > now > > >> > my > > >> > >> >> > application has to create some really fragile (my > autocorrect > > >> just > > >> > >> tried > > >> > >> >> to > > >> > >> >> > make that “tragic”, which is probably appropriate too) code > to > > >> > strip > > >> > >> >> > everything off, rather than just consuming the messages, > > picking > > >> > out > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> >> 1 > > >> > >> >> > or 2 headers it’s interested in, and performing its > function. > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > Honestly, this discussion has been going on for a long time, > > and > > >> > it’s > > >> > >> >> > always “Oh, you came up with 2 use cases, and yeah, those > use > > >> cases > > >> > >> are > > >> > >> >> > real things that someone would want to do. Here’s an > alternate > > >> way > > >> > to > > >> > >> >> > implement them so let’s not do headers.” If we have a few > use > > >> cases > > >> > >> that > > >> > >> >> we > > >> > >> >> > actually came up with, you can be sure that over the next > year > > >> > >> there’s a > > >> > >> >> > dozen others that we didn’t think of that someone would like > > to > > >> > do. I > > >> > >> >> > really think it’s time to stop rehashing this discussion and > > >> > instead > > >> > >> >> focus > > >> > >> >> > on a workable standard that we can adopt. > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > -Todd > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Todd Palino < > > tpal...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> >> C. per message encryption > > >> > >> >> >>> One drawback of this approach is that this significantly > > reduce > > >> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> effectiveness of compression, which happens on a set of > > >> > serialized > > >> > >> >> >>> messages. An alternative is to enable SSL for wire > > encryption > > >> and > > >> > >> rely > > >> > >> >> on > > >> > >> >> >>> the storage system (e.g. LUKS) for at rest encryption. > > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> Jun, this is not sufficient. While this does cover the case > > of > > >> > >> removing > > >> > >> >> a > > >> > >> >> >> drive from the system, it will not satisfy most compliance > > >> > >> requirements > > >> > >> >> for > > >> > >> >> >> encryption of data as whoever has access to the broker > itself > > >> > still > > >> > >> has > > >> > >> >> >> access to the unencrypted data. For end-to-end encryption > you > > >> > need to > > >> > >> >> >> encrypt at the producer, before it enters the system, and > > >> decrypt > > >> > at > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> >> >> consumer, after it exits the system. > > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> -Todd > > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:03 PM, radai < > > >> radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> wrote: > > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >>> another big plus of headers in the protocol is that it > would > > >> > enable > > >> > >> >> rapid > > >> > >> >> >>> iteration on ideas outside of core kafka and would reduce > > the > > >> > >> number of > > >> > >> >> >>> future wire format changes required. > > >> > >> >> >>> > > >> > >> >> >>> a lot of what is currently a KIP represents use cases that > > are > > >> > not > > >> > >> 100% > > >> > >> >> >>> relevant to all users, and some of them require rather > > invasive > > >> > wire > > >> > >> >> >>> protocol changes. a thing a good recent example of this is > > >> > kip-98. > > >> > >> >> >>> tx-utilizing traffic is expected to be a very small > > fraction of > > >> > >> total > > >> > >> >> >>> traffic and yet the changes are invasive. > > >> > >> >> >>> > > >> > >> >> >>> every such wire format change translates into painful and > > slow > > >> > >> >> adoption of > > >> > >> >> >>> new versions. > > >> > >> >> >>> > > >> > >> >> >>> i think a lot of functionality currently in KIPs could be > > "spun > > >> > out" > > >> > >> >> and > > >> > >> >> >>> implemented as opt-in plugins transmitting data over > > headers. > > >> > this > > >> > >> >> would > > >> > >> >> >>> keep the core wire format stable(r), core codebase > smaller, > > and > > >> > >> avoid > > >> > >> >> the > > >> > >> >> >>> "burden of proof" thats sometimes required to prove a > > certain > > >> > >> feature > > >> > >> >> is > > >> > >> >> >>> useful enough for a wide-enough audience to warrant a wire > > >> format > > >> > >> >> change > > >> > >> >> >>> and code complexity additions. > > >> > >> >> >>> > > >> > >> >> >>> (to be clear - kip-98 goes beyond "mere" wire format > changes > > >> and > > >> > im > > >> > >> not > > >> > >> >> >>> saying it could have been completely done with headers, > but > > >> > >> >> exactly-once > > >> > >> >> >>> delivery certainly could) > > >> > >> >> >>> > > >> > >> >> >>> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Gwen Shapira < > > >> g...@confluent.io > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > > >> > >> >> >>> > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:24 AM, radai < > > >> > >> radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> >> >>> wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > > "For use cases within an organization, one could > always > > use > > >> > >> other > > >> > >> >> >>> > > approaches such as company-wise containers" > > >> > >> >> >>> > > this is what linkedin has traditionally done but there > > are > > >> > now > > >> > >> >> cases > > >> > >> >> >>> > (read > > >> > >> >> >>> > > - topics) where this is not acceptable. this makes > > headers > > >> > >> useful > > >> > >> >> even > > >> > >> >> >>> > > within single orgs for cases where > > one-container-fits-all > > >> > cannot > > >> > >> >> >>> apply. > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > > as for the particular use cases listed, i dont want > > this to > > >> > >> devolve > > >> > >> >> >>> to a > > >> > >> >> >>> > > discussion of particular use cases - i think its > enough > > >> that > > >> > >> some > > >> > >> >> of > > >> > >> >> >>> them > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > I think a main point of contention is that: We > identified > > few > > >> > >> >> >>> > use-cases where headers are useful, do we want Kafka to > > be a > > >> > >> system > > >> > >> >> >>> > that supports those use-cases? > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > For example, Jun said: > > >> > >> >> >>> > "Not sure how widely useful record-level lineage is > though > > >> > since > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> >> >>> > overhead could > > >> > >> >> >>> > be significant." > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > We know NiFi supports record level lineage. I don't > think > > it > > >> > was > > >> > >> >> >>> > developed for lols, I think it is safe to assume that > the > > NSA > > >> > >> needed > > >> > >> >> >>> > that functionality. We also know that certain financial > > >> > institutes > > >> > >> >> >>> > need to track tampering with records at a record level > and > > >> > there > > >> > >> are > > >> > >> >> >>> > federal regulations that absolutely require this. They > > also > > >> > need > > >> > >> to > > >> > >> >> >>> > prove that routing apps that "touches" the messages and > > >> either > > >> > >> reads > > >> > >> >> >>> > or updates headers couldn't have possibly modified the > > >> payload > > >> > >> >> itself. > > >> > >> >> >>> > They use record level encryption to do that - apps can > > read > > >> and > > >> > >> >> >>> > (sometimes) modify headers but can't touch the payload. > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > We can totally say "those are corner cases and not worth > > >> adding > > >> > >> >> >>> > headers to Kafka for", they should use a different > pubsub > > >> > message > > >> > >> for > > >> > >> >> >>> > that (Nifi or one of the other 1000 that cater > > specifically > > >> to > > >> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > financial industry). > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > But this gets us into a catch 22: > > >> > >> >> >>> > If we discuss a specific use-case, someone can always > say > > it > > >> > isn't > > >> > >> >> >>> > interesting enough for Kafka. If we discuss more general > > >> > trends, > > >> > >> >> >>> > others can say "well, we are not sure any of them really > > >> needs > > >> > >> >> headers > > >> > >> >> >>> > specifically. This is just hand waving and not > > interesting.". > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > I think discussing use-cases in specifics is super > > important > > >> to > > >> > >> >> decide > > >> > >> >> >>> > implementation details for headers (my use-cases lean > > toward > > >> > >> >> numerical > > >> > >> >> >>> > keys with namespaces and object values, others differ), > > but I > > >> > >> think > > >> > >> >> we > > >> > >> >> >>> > need to answer the general "Are we going to have > headers" > > >> > question > > >> > >> >> >>> > first. > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > I'd love to hear from the other committers in the > > discussion: > > >> > >> >> >>> > What would it take to convince you that headers in Kafka > > are > > >> a > > >> > >> good > > >> > >> >> >>> > idea in general, so we can move ahead and try to agree > on > > the > > >> > >> >> details? > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > I feel like we keep moving the goal posts and this is > > truly > > >> > >> >> exhausting. > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > For the record, I mildly support adding headers to Kafka > > >> > (+0.5?). > > >> > >> >> >>> > The community can continue to find workarounds to the > > issue > > >> and > > >> > >> there > > >> > >> >> >>> > are some benefits to keeping the message format and > > clients > > >> > >> simpler. > > >> > >> >> >>> > But I see the usefulness of headers to many use-cases > and > > if > > >> we > > >> > >> can > > >> > >> >> >>> > find a good and generally useful way to add it to Kafka, > > it > > >> > will > > >> > >> make > > >> > >> >> >>> > Kafka easier to use for many - worthy goal in my eyes. > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > > are interesting/feasible, but: > > >> > >> >> >>> > > A+B. i think there are use cases for polyglot topics. > > >> > >> especially if > > >> > >> >> >>> kafka > > >> > >> >> >>> > > is being used to "trunk" something else. > > >> > >> >> >>> > > D. multiple topics would make it harder to write > > portable > > >> > >> consumer > > >> > >> >> >>> code. > > >> > >> >> >>> > > partition remapping would mess with locality of > > consumption > > >> > >> >> >>> guarantees. > > >> > >> >> >>> > > E+F. a use case I see for lineage/metadata is > > >> > >> billing/chargeback. > > >> > >> >> for > > >> > >> >> >>> > that > > >> > >> >> >>> > > use case it is not enough to simply record the point > of > > >> > origin, > > >> > >> but > > >> > >> >> >>> every > > >> > >> >> >>> > > replication stop (think mirror maker) must also add a > > >> record > > >> > to > > >> > >> >> form a > > >> > >> >> >>> > > "transit log". > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > > as for stream processing on top of kafka - i know > samza > > >> has a > > >> > >> >> metadata > > >> > >> >> >>> > map > > >> > >> >> >>> > > which they carry around in addition to user values. > > headers > > >> > are > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> >> >>> > perfect > > >> > >> >> >>> > > fit for these things. > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Jun Rao < > > j...@confluent.io > > >> > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> Hi, Michael, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> In order to answer the first two questions, it would > be > > >> > helpful > > >> > >> >> if we > > >> > >> >> >>> > could > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> identify 1 or 2 strong use cases for headers in the > > space > > >> > for > > >> > >> >> >>> > third-party > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> vendors. For use cases within an organization, one > > could > > >> > always > > >> > >> >> use > > >> > >> >> >>> > other > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> approaches such as company-wise containers to get > > around > > >> w/o > > >> > >> >> >>> headers. I > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> went through the use cases in the KIP and in Radai's > > wiki > > >> ( > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/A+ > > >> > >> >> >>> > Case+for+Kafka+Headers > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> ). > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> The following are the ones that that I understand and > > >> could > > >> > be > > >> > >> in > > >> > >> >> the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> third-party use case category. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> A. content-type > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> It seems that in general, content-type should be set > at > > >> the > > >> > >> topic > > >> > >> >> >>> level. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> Not sure if mixing messages with different content > > types > > >> > >> should be > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> encouraged. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> B. schema id > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> Since the value is mostly useless without schema id, > it > > >> > seems > > >> > >> that > > >> > >> >> >>> > storing > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> the schema id together with serialized bytes in the > > value > > >> is > > >> > >> >> better? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> C. per message encryption > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> One drawback of this approach is that this > > significantly > > >> > reduce > > >> > >> >> the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> effectiveness of compression, which happens on a set > of > > >> > >> serialized > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> messages. An alternative is to enable SSL for wire > > >> > encryption > > >> > >> and > > >> > >> >> >>> rely > > >> > >> >> >>> > on > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> the storage system (e.g. LUKS) for at rest > encryption. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> D. cluster ID for mirroring across Kafka clusters > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> This is actually interesting. Today, to avoid > > introducing > > >> > >> cycles > > >> > >> >> when > > >> > >> >> >>> > doing > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> mirroring across data centers, one would either have > to > > >> set > > >> > up > > >> > >> two > > >> > >> >> >>> Kafka > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> clusters (a local and an aggregate) per data center > or > > >> > rename > > >> > >> >> topics. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> Neither is ideal. With headers, the producer could > tag > > >> each > > >> > >> >> message > > >> > >> >> >>> with > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> the producing cluster ID in the header. MirrorMaker > > could > > >> > then > > >> > >> >> avoid > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> mirroring messages to a cluster if they are tagged > with > > >> the > > >> > >> same > > >> > >> >> >>> cluster > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> id. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> However, an alternative approach is to introduce sth > > like > > >> > >> >> >>> hierarchical > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> topic and store messages from different clusters in > > >> > different > > >> > >> >> >>> partitions > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> under the same topic. This approach avoids filtering > > out > > >> > >> unneeded > > >> > >> >> >>> data > > >> > >> >> >>> > and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> makes offset preserving easier to support. It may > make > > >> > >> compaction > > >> > >> >> >>> > trickier > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> though since the same key may show up in different > > >> > partitions. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> E. record-level lineage > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> For example, a source connector could store in the > > message > > >> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> metadata > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> (e.g. UUID) of the source record. Similarly, if a > > stream > > >> job > > >> > >> >> >>> transforms > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> messages from topic A to topic B, the library could > > >> include > > >> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> source > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> message offset in each of the transformed message in > > the > > >> > >> header. > > >> > >> >> Not > > >> > >> >> >>> > sure > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> how widely useful record-level lineage is though > since > > the > > >> > >> >> overhead > > >> > >> >> >>> > could > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> be significant. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> F. auditing metadata > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> We could put things like clientId/host/user in the > > header > > >> in > > >> > >> each > > >> > >> >> >>> > message > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> for auditing. These metadata are really at the > producer > > >> > level > > >> > >> >> though. > > >> > >> >> >>> > So, a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> more efficient way is to only include a "producerId" > > per > > >> > >> message > > >> > >> >> and > > >> > >> >> >>> > send > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> the producerId -> metadata mapping independently. > > KIP-98 > > >> is > > >> > >> >> actually > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> proposing including such a producerId natively in the > > >> > message. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> So, overall, I not sure that I am fully convinced of > > the > > >> > strong > > >> > >> >> >>> > third-party > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> use cases of headers yet. Perhaps we could discuss a > > bit > > >> > more > > >> > >> to > > >> > >> >> make > > >> > >> >> >>> > one > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> or two really convincing use cases. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> Another orthogonal question is whether header should > > be > > >> > >> exposed > > >> > >> >> in > > >> > >> >> >>> > stream > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> processing systems such Kafka stream, Samza, and > Spark > > >> > >> streaming. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> Currently, those systems just deal with key/value > > pairs. > > >> > >> Should we > > >> > >> >> >>> > expose a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> third thing header there too or somehow map header to > > key > > >> or > > >> > >> >> value? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> Thanks, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> Jun > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Michael Pearce < > > >> > >> >> >>> michael.pea...@ig.com> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > I assume, that after a period of a week, that there > > is > > >> no > > >> > >> >> concerns > > >> > >> >> >>> now > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > with points 1, and 2 and now we have agreement that > > >> > headers > > >> > >> are > > >> > >> >> >>> useful > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > needed in Kafka. As such if put to a KIP vote, this > > >> > wouldn’t > > >> > >> be > > >> > >> >> a > > >> > >> >> >>> > reason > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> to > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > reject. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > @ > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > Ignacio on point 4). > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > I think for purpose of getting this KIP moving past > > >> this, > > >> > we > > >> > >> can > > >> > >> >> >>> state > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > key will be a 4 bytes space that can will be > > naturally > > >> > >> >> interpreted > > >> > >> >> >>> as > > >> > >> >> >>> > an > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > Int32 (if namespacing is later wanted you can > easily > > >> split > > >> > >> this > > >> > >> >> >>> into > > >> > >> >> >>> > two > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > int16 spaces), from the wire protocol > implementation > > >> this > > >> > >> makes > > >> > >> >> no > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > difference I don’t believe. Is this reasonable to > > all? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > On 5) as per point 4 therefor happy we keep with 32 > > >> bits. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > On 18/11/2016, 20:34, "ignacio.so...@gmail.com on > > >> behalf > > >> > of > > >> > >> >> >>> Ignacio > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > Solis" <ignacio.so...@gmail.com on behalf of > > >> > iso...@igso.net > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > Summary: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > 3) Yes - Header value as byte[] > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > 4a) Int,Int - No > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > 4b) Int - Yes > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > 4c) String - Reluctant maybe > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > 5) I believe the header system should take a > > single > > >> > >> int. I > > >> > >> >> >>> think > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > 32bits is > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > a good size, if you want to interpret this as > to > > >> 16bit > > >> > >> >> numbers > > >> > >> >> >>> in > > >> > >> >> >>> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > layer > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > above go right ahead. If somebody wants to > argue > > >> for > > >> > 16 > > >> > >> >> bits > > >> > >> >> >>> or > > >> > >> >> >>> > 64 > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > bits of > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > header key space I would listen. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > Discussion: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > Dividing the key space into sub_key_1 and > > sub_key_2 > > >> > >> makes no > > >> > >> >> >>> > sense to > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > me at > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > this layer. Are we going to start providing > > APIs to > > >> > get > > >> > >> all > > >> > >> >> >>> the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > sub_key_1s? or all the sub_key_2s? If there is > > no > > >> > >> >> >>> distinguishing > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > functions > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > that are applied to each one then they should > be > > a > > >> > single > > >> > >> >> >>> value. > > >> > >> >> >>> > At > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > this > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > layer all we're doing is equality. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > If the above layer wants to interpret this as > 2, > > 3 > > >> or > > >> > >> more > > >> > >> >> >>> values > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > that's a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > different question. I personally think it's > all > > one > > >> > >> >> keyspace > > >> > >> >> >>> > that is > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > getting assigned using some structure, but if > you > > >> > want to > > >> > >> >> >>> > sub-assign > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > parts > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > of it then that's fine. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > The same discussion applies to strings. If > > somebody > > >> > >> argued > > >> > >> >> for > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > strings, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > would we be arguing to divide the strings with > > dots > > >> > ('.') > > >> > >> >> as a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > requirement? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > Would we want them to give us the different > name > > >> > segments > > >> > >> >> >>> > separately? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > Would we be performing any actions on this key > > other > > >> > than > > >> > >> >> >>> > matching? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > Nacho > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Michael > Pearce < > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> michael.pea...@ig.com > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > #jay #jun any concerns on 1 and 2 still? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > @all > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > To get this moving along a bit more I'd also > > like > > >> to > > >> > >> ask > > >> > >> >> to > > >> > >> >> >>> get > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > clarity on > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > the below last points: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > 3) I believe we're all roughly happy with the > > >> header > > >> > >> value > > >> > >> >> >>> > being a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > byte[]? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > 4) I believe consensus has been for an > > namespace > > >> > based > > >> > >> int > > >> > >> >> >>> > approach > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > {int,int} for the key. Any objections if this > > is > > >> > what > > >> > >> we > > >> > >> >> go > > >> > >> >> >>> > with? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > 5) as we have if assumption in (4) is > correct, > > >> > >> {int,int} > > >> > >> >> >>> keys. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > Should both int's be int16 or int32? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > I'm for them being int16(2 bytes) as combined > > is > > >> > space > > >> > >> of > > >> > >> >> >>> > 4bytes as > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > per > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > original and gives plenty of combinations for > > the > > >> > >> >> >>> foreseeable, > > >> > >> >> >>> > and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > keeps > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > the overhead small. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > Do we see any benefit in another kip call to > > >> discuss > > >> > >> >> these at > > >> > >> >> >>> > all? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > Cheers > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > Mike > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > ________________________________________ > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > From: K Burstev <k.burs...@yandex.com> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 7:07:07 AM > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-82 - Add Record > > Headers > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > For what it is worth also i agree. As a user: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > 1) Yes - Headers are worthwhile > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > 2) Yes - Headers should be a top level > option > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > 14.11.2016, 21:15, "Ignacio Solis" < > > >> iso...@igso.net > > >> > >: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > 1) Yes - Headers are worthwhile > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > 2) Yes - Headers should be a top level > option > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Michael > > Pearce > > >> < > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > michael.pea...@ig.com> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> Hi Roger, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> The kip details/examples the original > > proposal > > >> > for > > >> > >> key > > >> > >> >> >>> > spacing > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> , > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > not > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> new mentioned as per discussion namespace > > >> idea. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> We will need to update the kip, when we > get > > >> > >> agreement > > >> > >> >> >>> this > > >> > >> >> >>> > is a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > better > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> approach (which seems to be the case if I > > have > > >> > >> >> understood > > >> > >> >> >>> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > general > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> feeling in the conversation) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> Re the variable ints, at very early stage > > we > > >> did > > >> > >> think > > >> > >> >> >>> about > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > this. I > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > think > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> the added complexity for the saving isn't > > >> worth > > >> > it. > > >> > >> >> I'd > > >> > >> >> >>> > rather > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> go > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > with, if > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> we want to reduce overheads and size > int16 > > >> > (2bytes) > > >> > >> >> keys > > >> > >> >> >>> as > > >> > >> >> >>> > it > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > keeps it > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> simple. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> On the note of no headers, there is as > per > > the > > >> > kip > > >> > >> as > > >> > >> >> we > > >> > >> >> >>> > use an > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > attribute > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> bit to denote if headers are present or > > not as > > >> > such > > >> > >> >> >>> > provides a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > zero > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> overhead currently if headers are not > used. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> I think as radai mentions would be good > > first > > >> > if we > > >> > >> >> can > > >> > >> >> >>> get > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > clarity if > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > do > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> we now have general consensus that (1) > > headers > > >> > are > > >> > >> >> >>> > worthwhile > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > useful, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> and (2) we want it as a top level entity. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> Just to state the obvious i believe (1) > > >> headers > > >> > are > > >> > >> >> >>> > worthwhile > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > and (2) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> agree as a top level entity. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> Cheers > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> Mike > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> ________________________________________ > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> From: Roger Hoover < > roger.hoo...@gmail.com > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 9:10:47 > > PM > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-82 - Add > Record > > >> > Headers > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> Sorry for going a little in the weeds but > > >> thanks > > >> > >> for > > >> > >> >> the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> replies > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > regarding > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> varint. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> Agreed that a prefix and {int, int} can > be > > the > > >> > >> same. > > >> > >> >> It > > >> > >> >> >>> > doesn't > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > look > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > like > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> that's what the KIP is saying the "Open" > > >> > section. > > >> > >> The > > >> > >> >> >>> > example > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > shows > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> 2100001 > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> for New Relic and 210002 for App Dynamics > > >> > implying > > >> > >> >> that > > >> > >> >> >>> the > > >> > >> >> >>> > New > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > Relic > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> organization will have only a single > > header id > > >> > to > > >> > >> work > > >> > >> >> >>> > with. Or > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > is > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > 2100001 > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> a prefix? The main point of a namespace > or > > >> > prefix > > >> > >> is > > >> > >> >> to > > >> > >> >> >>> > reduce > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> overhead of config mapping or > registration > > >> > >> depending > > >> > >> >> on > > >> > >> >> >>> how > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> namespaces/prefixes are managed. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> Would love to hear more feedback on the > > >> > >> higher-level > > >> > >> >> >>> > questions > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > though... > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> Roger > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:38 AM, radai < > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > I think this discussion is getting a > bit > > >> into > > >> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> weeds on > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > technical > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > implementation details. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > I'd liek to step back a minute and try > > and > > >> > >> establish > > >> > >> >> >>> > where we > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > are in > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > larger picture: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > (re-wording nacho's last paragraph) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > 1. are we all in agreement that headers > > are > > >> a > > >> > >> >> >>> worthwhile > > >> > >> >> >>> > and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > useful > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > addition to have? this was contested > > early > > >> on > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > 2. are we all in agreement on headers > as > > top > > >> > >> level > > >> > >> >> >>> entity > > >> > >> >> >>> > vs > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > headers > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > squirreled-away in V? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > if there are still concerns around > these > > #2 > > >> > >> points > > >> > >> >> >>> (#jay? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > #jun?)? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > (and now back to our normal programming > > ...) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > varints are nice. having said that, its > > >> adding > > >> > >> >> >>> complexity > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> (see > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > https://github.com/addthis/ > > >> > >> >> stream-lib/blob/master/src/ > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > main/java/com/clearspring/ > > >> > >> >> analytics/util/Varint.java > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > as 1st google result) and would require > > >> anyone > > >> > >> >> writing > > >> > >> >> >>> > other > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > clients > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > (C? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > Python? Go? Bash? ;-) ) to > get/implement > > the > > >> > >> same, > > >> > >> >> and > > >> > >> >> >>> for > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > relatively > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > little gain (int vs string is order of > > >> > magnitude, > > >> > >> >> this > > >> > >> >> >>> > isnt). > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > int namespacing vs {int, int} > namespacing > > >> are > > >> > >> >> basically > > >> > >> >> >>> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > same > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > thing - > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > youre just namespacing an int64 and > > giving > > >> > people > > >> > >> >> while > > >> > >> >> >>> > 2^32 > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > ranges > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > at a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > time. the part i like about this is > > letting > > >> > >> people > > >> > >> >> >>> have a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> large > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > swath of > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > numbers with one registration so they > > dont > > >> > have > > >> > >> to > > >> > >> >> come > > >> > >> >> >>> > back > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > for > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > every > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > single plugin/header they want to > > "reserve". > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Roger > > >> Hoover > > >> > < > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > roger.hoo...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > Since some of the debate has been > about > > >> > >> overhead + > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > performance, I'm > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > wondering if we have considered a > > varint > > >> > >> encoding > > >> > >> >> ( > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > https://developers.google.com/ > > >> > >> >> protocol-buffers/docs/ > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > encoding#varints) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > for > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > the header length field (int32 in the > > >> > proposal) > > >> > >> >> and > > >> > >> >> >>> for > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > header > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > ids? If > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > you > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > don't use headers, the overhead would > > be a > > >> > >> single > > >> > >> >> >>> byte > > >> > >> >> >>> > and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > for each > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > header > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > id < 128 would also need only a > single > > >> byte? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 6:43 AM, > radai < > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > @magnus - and very dangerous (youre > > >> > >> essentially > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > downloading and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > executing > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > arbitrary code off the internet on > > your > > >> > >> servers > > >> > >> >> ... > > >> > >> >> >>> > bad > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > idea > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > without > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > sandbox, even with) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > as for it being a purely > > administrative > > >> > task > > >> > >> - i > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> disagree. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > i wish it would, really, because > > then my > > >> > >> earlier > > >> > >> >> >>> > point on > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > complexity > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > of > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > the remapping process would be > > invalid, > > >> > but > > >> > >> at > > >> > >> >> >>> > linkedin, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > for > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > example, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > we > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > (the team im in) run kafka as a > > service. > > >> > we > > >> > >> dont > > >> > >> >> >>> > really > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > know > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > what our > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > users > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > (developing applications that use > > kafka) > > >> > are > > >> > >> up > > >> > >> >> to > > >> > >> >> >>> at > > >> > >> >> >>> > any > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > given > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> moment. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > it > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > is very possible (given the > > existance of > > >> > >> headers > > >> > >> >> >>> and a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > corresponding > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > plugin > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > ecosystem) for some application to > > >> "equip" > > >> > >> their > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> producers > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > consumers > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > with the required plugin without us > > >> > knowing. > > >> > >> i > > >> > >> >> dont > > >> > >> >> >>> > mean > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > to imply > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> thats > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > bad, i just want to make the point > > that > > >> > its > > >> > >> not > > >> > >> >> as > > >> > >> >> >>> > simple > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > keeping it > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> in > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > sync across a large-enough > > organization. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 6:17 AM, > > Magnus > > >> > >> Edenhill > > >> > >> >> < > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > mag...@edenhill.se> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > I think there is a piece missing > in > > >> the > > >> > >> >> Strings > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > discussion, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > where > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > pro-Stringers > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > reason that by providing unique > > string > > >> > >> >> >>> identifiers > > >> > >> >> >>> > for > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > each > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > header > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > everything will just > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > magically work for all parts of > the > > >> > stream > > >> > >> >> >>> pipeline. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > But the strings dont mean > anything > > by > > >> > >> >> themselves, > > >> > >> >> >>> > and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > while we > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> could > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > probably envision > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > some auto plugin loader that > > >> downloads, > > >> > >> >> compiles, > > >> > >> >> >>> > links > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > runs > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > plugins > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > on-demand > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > as soon as they're seen by a > > >> consumer, I > > >> > >> dont > > >> > >> >> >>> really > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> see > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > use-case > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > for > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > something > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > so dynamic (and fragile) in > > practice. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > In the real world an application > > will > > >> be > > >> > >> >> >>> configured > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> with > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > a set > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > of > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > plugins > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > to either add (producer) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > or read (consumer) headers. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > This is an administrative task > > based > > >> on > > >> > >> what > > >> > >> >> >>> > features a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > client > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > needs/provides and results in > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > some sort of configuration to > > enable > > >> and > > >> > >> >> >>> configure > > >> > >> >> >>> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > desired > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > plugins. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > Since this needs to be kept > > somewhat > > >> in > > >> > >> sync > > >> > >> >> >>> across > > >> > >> >> >>> > an > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > organisation > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > (there > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > is no point in having producers > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > add headers no consumers will > read, > > >> and > > >> > >> vice > > >> > >> >> >>> versa), > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > added > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > complexity > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > of assigning an id namespace > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > for each plugin as it is being > > >> > configured > > >> > >> >> should > > >> > >> >> >>> be > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > tolerable. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > /Magnus > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > 2016-11-09 13:06 GMT+01:00 > Michael > > >> > Pearce < > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > michael.pea...@ig.com>: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > Just following/catching up on > > what > > >> > seems > > >> > >> to > > >> > >> >> be > > >> > >> >> >>> an > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > active > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > night :) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > @Radai sorry if it may seem > > obvious > > >> > but > > >> > >> what > > >> > >> >> >>> does > > >> > >> >> >>> > MD > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > stand > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > for? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > My take on String vs Int: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > I will state first I am pro Int > > (16 > > >> or > > >> > >> 32). > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > I do though playing devils > > advocate > > >> > see a > > >> > >> >> big > > >> > >> >> >>> plus > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > with the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > argument > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > of > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > String keys, this is around > > >> > integrating > > >> > >> >> into an > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > existing > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > eco-system. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > As many other systems use > String > > >> based > > >> > >> >> headers > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> (Flume, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > JMS) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > it > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > makes > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > it > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > much easier for these to be > > >> > >> >> >>> > incorporated/integrated > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > into. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > How with Int based headers > could > > we > > >> > >> provide > > >> > >> >> a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > way/guidence to > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> make > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > this > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > integration simple / easy with > > >> > transition > > >> > >> >> flows > > >> > >> >> >>> > over > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> to > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > kafka? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > * tough luck buddy you're on > your > > >> own > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > * simply hash the string into > int > > >> code > > >> > >> and > > >> > >> >> hope > > >> > >> >> >>> > for > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> no > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > collisions > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > (how > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > to > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > convert back though?) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > * http2 style as mentioned by > > nacho. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > cheers, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > Mike > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > ______________________________ > > >> > __________ > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > From: radai < > > >> > radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 9, > 2016 > > >> > 8:12 AM > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-82 - > > Add > > >> > >> Record > > >> > >> >> >>> Headers > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > thinking about it some more, > the > > >> best > > >> > >> way to > > >> > >> >> >>> > transmit > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > header > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > remapping > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > data to consumers would be to > > put it > > >> > in > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> >> MD > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> response > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > payload, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> so > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > maybe > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > it should be discussed now. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:09 > AM, > > >> > radai < > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > im not opposed to the idea of > > >> > namespace > > >> > >> >> >>> mapping. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> all > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > im > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > saying > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> is > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > that > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > its > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > not part of the "mvp" and, > > since > > >> it > > >> > >> >> requires > > >> > >> >> >>> no > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> wire > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > format > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > change, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > can > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > always be added later. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > also, its not as simple as > just > > >> > >> >> configuring > > >> > >> >> >>> MM > > >> > >> >> >>> > to > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> do > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > transform: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > lets > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > say i've implemented large > > message > > >> > >> >> support as > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > {666,1} and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > on > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> some > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > mirror > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > target cluster its been > > remapped > > >> to > > >> > >> >> {999,1}. > > >> > >> >> >>> the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > consumer > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> plugin > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > code > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > would > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > also need to be told to look > > for > > >> the > > >> > >> large > > >> > >> >> >>> > message > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > "part X > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > of > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> Y" > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > header > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > under {999,1}. doable, but > > tricky. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:29 > > PM, > > >> > Gwen > > >> > >> >> >>> Shapira < > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> g...@confluent.io > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> While you can do whatever > you > > >> want > > >> > >> with a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> namespace > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > your > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > code, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> what I'd expect is for each > > app > > >> to > > >> > >> >> >>> namespaces > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > configurable... > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> So if I accidentally used > 666 > > for > > >> > my > > >> > >> HR > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> department, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > still > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > want > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > to > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> run RadaiApp, I can config > > >> > >> "namespace=42" > > >> > >> >> >>> for > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > RadaiApp and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > everything > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> will look normal. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> This means you only need to > > sync > > >> > usage > > >> > >> >> >>> inside > > >> > >> >> >>> > your > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > own > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > organization. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Still hard, but somewhat > > easier > > >> > than > > >> > >> >> syncing > > >> > >> >> >>> > with > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > entire > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > world. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:07 > > PM, > > >> > >> radai < > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > and we can start with > > >> {namespace, > > >> > >> id} > > >> > >> >> and > > >> > >> >> >>> no > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > re-mapping > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > support > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> always > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > add it later on if/when > > >> > collisions > > >> > >> >> >>> actually > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > happen (i > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > dont > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > think > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > they'd > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> be > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > a problem). > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > every interested party (so > > orgs > > >> > or > > >> > >> >> >>> > individuals) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > could > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > then > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > register > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > prefix (0 = reserved, 1 = > > >> > confluent > > >> > >> ... > > >> > >> >> >>> 666 > > >> > >> >> >>> > = me > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > :-) ) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> do > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > whatever > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> with > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > the 2nd ID - so once > > linkedin > > >> > >> >> registers, > > >> > >> >> >>> say > > >> > >> >> >>> > 3, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > then > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> linkedin > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > devs > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > are > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> free > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > to use {3, *} with a > > reasonable > > >> > >> >> >>> expectation > > >> > >> >> >>> > to > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> to > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > collide > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> with > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > anything > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > else. further partitioning > > of > > >> > that * > > >> > >> >> >>> becomes > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > linkedin's > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > problem, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > but > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > "upstream registration" > of a > > >> > >> namespace > > >> > >> >> >>> only > > >> > >> >> >>> > has > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> to > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > happen > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > once. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at > 9:03 > > PM, > > >> > >> James > > >> > >> >> >>> Cheng < > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > wushuja...@gmail.com > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Nov 8, 2016, at 5:54 > > PM, > > >> > Gwen > > >> > >> >> >>> Shapira < > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > g...@confluent.io> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Thank you so much for > > this > > >> > clear > > >> > >> and > > >> > >> >> >>> fair > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > summary of > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > arguments. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I'm in favor of ints. > > Not a > > >> > >> >> >>> deal-breaker, > > >> > >> >> >>> > but > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > in > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > favor. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Even more in favor of > > >> Magnus's > > >> > >> >> >>> > decentralized > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > suggestion > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > with > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > Roger's > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > tweak: add a namespace > > for > > >> > >> headers. > > >> > >> >> >>> This > > >> > >> >> >>> > will > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > allow > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > each > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > app > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > to > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > just > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > use whatever IDs it > wants > > >> > >> >> internally, > > >> > >> >> >>> and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> then > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > let > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > admin > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> deploying > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the app figure out an > > >> > available > > >> > >> >> >>> namespace > > >> > >> >> >>> > ID > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > for the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > app > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> to > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > live > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > in. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > So > > >> > io.confluent.schema-registry > > >> > >> can > > >> > >> >> be > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > namespace > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > 0x01 on > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> my > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> deployment > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > and 0x57 on yours, and > > the > > >> > poor > > >> > >> guys > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > developing the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > app > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > don't > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > need > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > to > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > worry about that. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Gwen, if I understand > your > > >> > example > > >> > >> >> >>> right, an > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > application > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > deployer > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > might > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> decide to use 0x01 in one > > >> > >> deployment, > > >> > >> >> and > > >> > >> >> >>> > that > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > means > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > that > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > once > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> message > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> is written into the > > broker, it > > >> > >> will be > > >> > >> >> >>> > saved on > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > broker > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > with > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > that > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> specific namespace > (0x01). > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> If you were to mirror > that > > >> > message > > >> > >> >> into > > >> > >> >> >>> > another > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > cluster, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > 0x01 > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > would > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> accompany the message, > > right? > > >> > What > > >> > >> if > > >> > >> >> the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > deployers of > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > same > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > app > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > in > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> other cluster uses 0x57? > > They > > >> > won't > > >> > >> >> >>> > understand > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > each > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > other? > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I'm not sure that's an > > >> avoidable > > >> > >> >> >>> problem. I > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > think it > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > simply > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > means > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > that > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> in > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> order to share data, you > > have > > >> to > > >> > >> also > > >> > >> >> >>> have a > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > shared > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > (agreed > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > upon) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> understanding of what the > > >> > >> namespaces > > >> > >> >> >>> mean. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> Which > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > I > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > think > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > makes > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > sense, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> because the alternate > > (sharing > > >> > >> >> *nothing* > > >> > >> >> >>> at > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> all) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > would > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > mean > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > that > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > there > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> would be no way to > > understand > > >> > each > > >> > >> >> other. > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> -James > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Gwen > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at > > 4:23 > > >> > PM, > > >> > >> >> radai < > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > radai.rosenbl...@gmail.com> > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> +1 for sean's > document. > > it > > >> > >> covers > > >> > >> >> >>> pretty > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> much > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > all > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > the > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > trade-offs > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > and > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> provides concrete > > figures > > >> to > > >> > >> argue > > >> > >> >> >>> about > > >> > >> >> >>> > :-) > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >> (nit-picking - used > the > > >> same > > >> > >> xkcd > > >> > >> >> >>> twice, > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> also > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > trove > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > has > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > been > > >> > >> >> >>> > >> > > >> > > > > > >> superceded > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Gwen Shapira > > >> > Product Manager | Confluent > > >> > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > >> > Follow us: Twitter | blog > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> *Todd Palino* > > >> Staff Site Reliability Engineer > > >> Data Infrastructure Streaming > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> linkedin.com/in/toddpalino > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Gwen Shapira > > Product Manager | Confluent > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > Follow us: Twitter | blog > > >
