Hi Tom,

OK, I suggest not calling any policy then. We can do a separate KIP for
overhauling topic policies so that they work with all operations for 1.1.0.
Regarding the loophole issue, keep in mind that the alter topics
authorization would still be required, so I don't think it's an issue.
Users that really need a policy will have to wait until 1.1.0, but that's
no worse than if KIP-195 doesn't make it into 1.0.0.

If you remove the policy text and update the KIP so that the request must
be sent to the Controller and we wait until the data is propagated into the
Controller's metadata cache (similar to create topic), it's a +1 from me.

Ismael

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2. About using the create topics policy, I'm not sure. Aside from the
> > naming issue, there's also the problem that the policy doesn't know if a
> > creation or update is taking place. This matters because one may not want
> > to allow the number of partitions to be changed after creation as it
> > affects the semantics if keys are used. One option is to introduce a new
> > interface that can be used by create, alter and delete with a new config.
> > And deprecate CreateTopicPolicy. I doubt many are using it. What do you
> > think?
> >
>
> I included the part about the create topics policy because I felt it was
> better, in the short term, to prevent the loophole than to just ignore it.
> The create topic policy is obviously not a good fit for applying to topic
> modifications, but I think designing a good policy interface that covered
> creation, modification and deletion could be the subject of its own KIP.
> Note that modification would include the APIs proposed in KIP-195 and
> KIP-179. KIP-170 is already proposing to change the creation policy and add
> a deletion policy, so shouldn't the changes necessary for KIP-195 be
> considered as part of that KIP?
>
> I'm happy to propose something in KIP-195 if you really want, though it
> would put in doubt whether it could be part of Kafka 1.0.0.
>

Reply via email to