+1 (non-binding) On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Viktor Somogyi <viktorsomo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Updated KIP-248: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-248+-+Create+New+ > ConfigCommand+That+Uses+The+New+AdminClient > > I'd like to ask project members, committers and contributors to vote > as this would be a useful improvement in Kafka. > > Sections changed: > - Public interfaces: added the bin/scram-credentials.sh command that > we discussed with Colin. > - Wire format types: removed AlterOperations. As discussed with Colin, > we don't actually need this: we should behave in an incremental way in > AlterQuotas. For AlterConfig we'll implement this behavior with an > extra flag on the protocol (and incrementing the version). > - AlterQuotas protocol: removed AlterOperations. Added some more > description to the behavior of the protocol. Removing quotas will > happen by sending a NaN instead of the AlterOperations. (Since IEEE > 754 covers NaNs and it is not a valid config for any quota, I think it > is a good notation.) > - SCRAM: so it will be done by the scram-credentials command that uses > direct zookeeper connection. I think further modes, like doing it > through the broker is not necessary. The idea here is that zookeeper > in this case acts as a credentials store. This should be decoupled > from the broker as we manage broker credentials as well. The new > command acts as a client to the store. > - AlterConfigs will have an incremental_update flag as discussed. By > default it is false to provide the backward compatible behavior. When > it is true it will merge the configs with what's there in the node. > Deletion in incremental mode is done by sending an empty string as > config value. > - Other compatibility changes: this KIP doesn't scope listing multiple > users and client's quotas. As per a conversation with Rajini, it is > not a common use case and we can add it back later if it is needed. If > this functionality is needed, the old code should be still available > through run-kafka-class. (Removed the USE_OLD_KAFKA_CONFIG_COMMAND as > it doesn't make sense anymore.) > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Viktor Somogyi > <viktorsomo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ok, ignore my previous mail (except the last sentence), gmail didn't > > update me about your last email :/. > > > >> I think we should probably just create a flag for alterConfigs which > marks it as incremental, like we discussed earlier, and do this as a > compatible change that is needed for the shell command. > > > > Alright, I missed that about the sensitive configs too, so in this > > case I can agree with this. I'll update the KIP this afternoon and > > update this thread. > > Thanks again for your contribution. > > > > Viktor > > > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 2:34 AM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Actually, I just realized that this won't work. The AlterConfigs API > is kind of broken right now. DescribeConfigs won't return the "sensitive" > configurations like passwords. So doing describe + edit + alter will wipe > out all sensitive configs. :( > >> > >> I think we should probably just create a flag for alterConfigs which > marks it as incremental, like we discussed earlier, and do this as a > compatible change that is needed for the shell command. > >> > >> best, > >> Colin > >> > >> > >> On Thu, May 17, 2018, at 09:32, Colin McCabe wrote: > >>> Hi Viktor, > >>> > >>> Since the KIP freeze is coming up really soon, maybe we should just > drop > >>> the section about changes to AlterConfigs from KIP-248. We don't > really > >>> need it here, since ConfigCommand can use AlterConfigs as-is. > >>> > >>> We can pick up the discussion about improving AlterConfigs in a future > KIP. > >>> > >>> cheers, > >>> Colin > >>> > >>> On Wed, May 16, 2018, at 22:06, Colin McCabe wrote: > >>> > Hi Viktor, > >>> > > >>> > The shell command isn’t that easy to integrate into applications. > >>> > AdminClient will get integrated into a lot more stuff, which > >>> > increases the potential for conflicts. I would argue that we should > >>> > fix this soon. > >>> > If we do want to reduce the scope in this KIP, we could do the merge > in > >>> > the ConfigCommand tool for now, and leave AC unchanged. > >>> > Best, > >>> > Colin > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, May 16, 2018, at 04:57, Viktor Somogyi wrote: > >>> > > Hi Colin, > >>> > > > >>> > > > Doing get-merge-set is buggy, though. If someone else does > get-merge- > >>> > > > set at the same time as you, you might overwrite that person's > >>> > > > changes, or vice versa. So I really don't think we should try > to do > >>> > > > this. Also, having both an incremental and a full API is useful, > >>> > > > and it's just a single boolean at the protocol and API level.> > >>> > > Overwriting somebody's change is currently possible with the > >>> > > ConfigCommand, as it will do this get-merge-set behavior on the > client> side, in the command. From this perspective I think it's not much > >>> > > different to do this with the admin client. Also I think admins > don't> modify the quotas/configs of a client/user/topic/broker often (and > >>> > > multiple admins would do it even more rarely), so I don't think it > is> a big issue. What I think would be useful here but may be out of scope> > is to version the changes similarly to leader epochs. So when an admin> > updates the configs, it will increment a version number and won't let> > other admins to push changes in with lower than that. Instead it would> > return an error. > >>> > > > >>> > > I would be also interested what others think about this? > >>> > > > >>> > > Cheers, > >>> > > Viktor > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Colin McCabe > >>> > > <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:> > On Wed, May 9, 2018, at 05:41, > Viktor Somogyi wrote: > >>> > > >> Hi Colin, > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > We are going to need to create a new version of > >>> > > >> > AlterConfigsRequest to add the "incremental" boolean. So > while > >>> > > >> > we're doing that, maybe we can change the type to > >>> > > >> > NULLABLE_STRING.> >> > >>> > > >> I was just talking to a colleague yesterday and we came to the > >>> > > >> conclusion that we should keep the boolean flag only on the > client> >> side (as you may have suggested earlier?) and not make part of > the> >> protocol as it might lead to a very complicated API on the long > >>> > > >> term.> >> Also we would keep the server side API simpler. > Instead of the > >>> > > >> protocol change we could just simply have the boolean flag in > >>> > > >> AlterConfigOptions and the AdminClient should do the > get-merge-set> >> logic which corresponds to the behavior of the current > >>> > > >> ConfigCommand.> >> That way we won't need to change the > protocol for now but > >>> > > >> still have> >> both functionality. What do you think? > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Hi Viktor, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Doing get-merge-set is buggy, though. If someone else does > get-merge- > >>> > > > set at the same time as you, you might overwrite that person's > >>> > > > changes, or vice versa. So I really don't think we should try > to do > >>> > > > this. Also, having both an incremental and a full API is useful, > >>> > > > and it's just a single boolean at the protocol and API level.> > > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > Hmm. Not sure I follow. KIP-133 doesn't use the empty > string or > >>> > > >> > "<default>" to indicate defaults, does it?> >> > >>> > > >> No it doesn't. It was just my early idea to indicate "delete" > >>> > > >> on the> >> protocol level. (We are using <default> for denoting > the default > >>> > > >> client id or user in zookeeper.) Rajini was referring that we > >>> > > >> shouldn't expose this to the protocol level but instead denote > >>> > > >> delete> >> with an empty string. > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > This comes from DescribeConfigsResponse. > >>> > > >> > Unless I'm missing something, I think your suggestion to not > >>> > > >> > expose "<default>" is already implemented?> >> > >>> > > >> In some way, yes. Although this one is used in describe and not > in> >> alter. For alter I don't think we'd need my early "<default>" idea.> > > > >>> > > > OK. Thanks for the explanation. Using an empty string to > indicate > >>> > > > delete, as Rajini suggested, seems pretty reasonable to me. null > >>> > > > would work as well.> > > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> >> And we use STRING rather than NULLABLE_STRING in describe > >>> > > >> >> configs etc. So we> >> >> should probably do the same for > quotas." > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > I think nearly all responses treat ERROR_MESSAGE as a nullable > >>> > > >> > string. CommonFields#ERROR_MESSAGE, which is used by most of > >>> > > >> > them, is a nullable string. It's DescribeConfigsResponse > that is > >>> > > >> > the black sheep here.> >> > > >>> > > >> > > public static final Field.NullableStr ERROR_MESSAGE = > new > >>> > > >> > > Field.NullableStr("error_message", "Response error > >>> > > >> > > message");> >> > >>> > > >> Looking at DescribeConfigsResponse (and AlterConfigsResponse) > >>> > > >> they use> >> nullable_string in the code. KIP-133 states > otherwise though. So in> >> this case it's not a problem luckily. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Thanks for finding this inconsistency. I'll change the KIP to > >>> > > > reflect what was actually implemented (nullable string for > error).> > > >>> > > > cheers, > >>> > > > Colin > >>> > > > > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > What about writing a small script that just handles setting up > >>> > > >> > SCRAM credentials? It would probably be easier to maintain > than > >>> > > >> > the old config command. Otherwise we have to explain when > each > >>> > > >> > tool should be used, which will be confusing to users.> >> > >>> > > >> I'd like that, yes :). > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> Cheers, > >>> > > >> Viktor > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Colin McCabe < > cmcc...@apache.org> > >>> > > >> wrote:> >> > On Fri, May 4, 2018, at 05:49, Viktor Somogyi > wrote: > >>> > > >> >> Hi Colin, > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > Rather than breaking compatibility, we should simply add a > new > >>> > > >> >> > "incremental" boolean to AlterConfigsOptions. Callers can > set > >>> > > >> >> > this boolean to true when they want the update to be > >>> > > >> >> > incremental. It should default to false so that old code > >>> > > >> >> > continues to work.> >> >> > >>> > > >> >> Agreed, let's do it this way. > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > Hmm. I don't think AlterOperation is necessary. If the > user > >>> > > >> >> > wants to delete a configuration key named "foo", they can > >>> > > >> >> > create a ConfigEntry with name = "foo", value = null.> >> > >> > >>> > > >> >> AlterConfig's config type currently is string, so the only > >>> > > >> >> possibility> >> >> is to use an empty string as changing the > type to > >>> > > >> >> nullable_string> >> >> could be breaking if the client code > doesn't expect -1 as the > >>> > > >> >> string> >> >> size. In the discussion thread earlier we had > a conversation > >>> > > >> >> about> >> >> this with Rajini, let me paste it here (so it > gives some > >>> > > >> >> context). At> >> >> that point I had the text "<default>" > for this functionality: > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > Hi Viktor, > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > We are going to need to create a new version of > >>> > > >> > AlterConfigsRequest to add the "incremental" boolean. So > while > >>> > > >> > we're doing that, maybe we can change the type to > >>> > > >> > NULLABLE_STRING.> >> > > >>> > > >> >> "4. We use "<default>" internally to store default quotas and > >>> > > >> >> other> >> >> defaults. But I don't think we should > externalise that string. > >>> > > >> >> We use empty> >> >> string elsewhere for indicating default, > we can do the same > >>> > > >> >> here.> >> > > >>> > > >> > Hmm. Not sure I follow. KIP-133 doesn't use the empty > string or > >>> > > >> > "<default>" to indicate defaults, does it?> >> > > >>> > > >> > There is a ConfigEntry class: > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > @InterfaceStability.Evolving > >>> > > >> > > public class ConfigEntry { > >>> > > >> > > > >>> > > >> > > private final String name; > >>> > > >> > > private final String value; > >>> > > >> > > private final ConfigSource source; > >>> > > >> > > private final boolean isSensitive; > >>> > > >> > > private final boolean isReadOnly; > >>> > > >> > > private final List<ConfigSynonym> synonyms; > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > and the ConfigSource enum indicates where the config came > from: > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > /** > >>> > > >> > > * Source of configuration entries. > >>> > > >> > > */ > >>> > > >> > > public enum ConfigSource { > >>> > > >> > > DYNAMIC_TOPIC_CONFIG, // dynamic topic > >>> > > >> > > config that is configured for a specific topic> >> > > > DYNAMIC_BROKER_CONFIG, // dynamic broker > >>> > > >> > > config that is configured for a specific broker> > >> > > DYNAMIC_DEFAULT_BROKER_CONFIG, // dynamic broker > >>> > > >> > > config that is configured as default for all > brokers > >>> > > >> > > in the cluster> >> > > > STATIC_BROKER_CONFIG, // static broker > >>> > > >> > > config provided as broker properties at start up > (e.g. > >>> > > >> > > server.properties file)> >> > > > DEFAULT_CONFIG, // built-in default > >>> > > >> > > configuration for configs that have a default > value> >> > > UNKNOWN // source unknown > e.g. > >>> > > >> > > in the ConfigEntry used for alter requests where > >>> > > >> > > source is not set> >> > > } > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > This comes from DescribeConfigsResponse. > >>> > > >> > Unless I'm missing something, I think your suggestion to not > >>> > > >> > expose "<default>" is already implemented?> >> > > >>> > > >> >> And we use STRING rather than NULLABLE_STRING in describe > >>> > > >> >> configs etc. So we> >> >> should probably do the same for > quotas." > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > I think nearly all responses treat ERROR_MESSAGE as a nullable > >>> > > >> > string. CommonFields#ERROR_MESSAGE, which is used by most of > >>> > > >> > them, is a nullable string. It's DescribeConfigsResponse > that is > >>> > > >> > the black sheep here.> >> > > >>> > > >> > > public static final Field.NullableStr ERROR_MESSAGE = > new > >>> > > >> > > Field.NullableStr("error_message", "Response error > >>> > > >> > > message");> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > Yeah, this might be an excessive maintenance burden. > Maybe we > >>> > > >> >> > should get rid of the old zookeeper-based code, and just > move > >>> > > >> >> > towards having only a KIP-248-based tool. It's a breaking > >>> > > >> >> > change, but it's clear to users that it's occurring, and > what > >>> > > >> >> > the fix is (specifying --bootstrap-server instead of -- > >>> > > >> >> > zookeeper).> >> >> > >>> > > >> >> Earlier Rajini raised a concern that direct zookeeper > >>> > > >> >> interaction is> >> >> required to add the SCRAM credentials > which will be used for > >>> > > >> >> validation if inter-broker communication uses this auth > method. > >>> > > >> >> This> >> >> is currently done by the ConfigCommand. > Therefore we can't > >>> > > >> >> completely> >> >> get rid of it yet either. > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> In my opinion though on a longer term (and this is now a bit > >>> > > >> >> off-topic) Kafka shouldn't use Zookeeper as a credentials > store, > >>> > > >> >> just> >> >> provide an interface, so 3rd party > authentication stores could > >>> > > >> >> be> >> >> implemented. Then similarly to the authorizer we > could have > >>> > > >> >> Zookeeper> >> >> as a default though and a client that > manages SCRAM credentials > >>> > > >> >> in ZK.> >> >> From this perspective I'd leave the the > command there but put a> >> >> warning that the tool is deprecated and > should only be used for> >> >> setting up SCRAM credentials. > >>> > > >> >> What do you think? > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> > What about writing a small script that just handles setting up > >>> > > >> > SCRAM credentials? It would probably be easier to maintain > than > >>> > > >> > the old config command. Otherwise we have to explain when > each > >>> > > >> > tool should be used, which will be confusing to users.> >> > > >>> > > >> > best, > >>> > > >> > Colin > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> Cheers, > >>> > > >> >> Viktor > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Colin McCabe > >>> > > >> >> <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:> >> >> > On Thu, May 3, 2018, > at 05:11, Viktor Somogyi wrote: > >>> > > >> >> >> @Magnus, yes that is correct. Thanks for your feedback. > >>> > > >> >> >> Updated it with> >> >> >> this (which might be subject to > change based on the > >>> > > >> >> >> conversation with> >> >> >> Colin): "The changes done > will be incremental in version 1, > >>> > > >> >> >> opposed to the> >> >> >> atomic behavior in version 0. > For instance in version 0 > >>> > > >> >> >> sending an update> >> >> >> for producer_byte_rate for > userA would result in removing all > >>> > > >> >> >> previous data> >> >> >> and setting userA's config with > producer_byte_rate. Now in > >>> > > >> >> >> version 1> >> >> >> opposed to version 0 it will add an > extra config and keeps > >>> > > >> >> >> other existing> >> >> >> configs." > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > Hi Viktor, > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > AdminClient#alterConfigs is a public API which users have > >>> > > >> >> > already written code against. If we silently change what > it > >>> > > >> >> > does to be incremental addition rather than complete > >>> > > >> >> > replacement of the existing configuration, we will break > all > >>> > > >> >> > of that existing code. If we do that, there is not even > any > >>> > > >> >> > way that users can write code to support both broker > versions. > >>> > > >> >> > AdminClient does not expose any API that users can use to > >>> > > >> >> > check broker version. I think that would be really bad for > >>> > > >> >> > users.> >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > Rather than breaking compatibility, we should simply add a > new > >>> > > >> >> > "incremental" boolean to AlterConfigsOptions. Callers can > set > >>> > > >> >> > this boolean to true when they want the update to be > >>> > > >> >> > incremental. It should default to false so that old code > >>> > > >> >> > continues to work.> >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >> >> @Colin, > >>> > > >> >> >> yes, I have/had a hard time finding a place for this > >>> > > >> >> >> operation. I think ADD> >> >> >> and DELETE should be on > config level to allow complex use > >>> > > >> >> >> cases (if someone> >> >> >> builds their own tool based > on the AdminClient), so users can > >>> > > >> >> >> add and> >> >> >> delete multiple configs in one request. > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > Hmm. I don't think AlterOperation is necessary. If the > user > >>> > > >> >> > wants to delete a configuration key named "foo", they can > >>> > > >> >> > create a ConfigEntry with name = "foo", value = null.> >> > >> > > >>> > > >> >> >> But also at the same time, SET is as you're suggesting > really > >>> > > >> >> >> seems like a> >> >> >> flag that tells the > AdminClient/AdminManager how they should > >>> > > >> >> >> behave.> >> >> >> However since the AdminClient matches > protocol version with > >>> > > >> >> >> the broker via> >> >> >> the API_VERSIONS request, I > think it would be enough to > >>> > > >> >> >> modify the> >> >> >> AdminManager that it should behave > differently in case of an > >>> > > >> >> >> increased> >> >> >> protocol versions, if there is this > extra flag set through > >>> > > >> >> >> AlterConfigOptions (AdminClient sets the flag on the > >>> > > >> >> >> protocol, which will> >> >> >> be reflected after parsing > in AdminManager). Also if we > >>> > > >> >> >> target this change> >> >> >> to 2.0 (June?), then we > might not need the extra flag but > >>> > > >> >> >> make the behavior> >> >> >> break. What do you think? > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > Right. I think a flag in AlterConfigsRequest makes sense. > >>> > > >> >> > AdminClient can set it based on a boolean field in > >>> > > >> >> > AlterConfigsOptions.> >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >> >> Keeping the --zookeeper option working is not infeasible > of > >>> > > >> >> >> course - and as> >> >> >> per the community's feedback it > may be the better option. > >>> > > >> >> >> Although one of> >> >> >> the goals is to put this new > ConfigCommand to the tools > >>> > > >> >> >> module, which> >> >> >> doesn't have the dependency on > the server code, it would be a > >>> > > >> >> >> bit harder.> >> >> >> Most likely I'd need to call into > the Scala code with > >>> > > >> >> >> reflection, which> >> >> >> could be quite complicated. > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > Yeah, this might be an excessive maintenance burden. > Maybe we > >>> > > >> >> > should get rid of the old zookeeper-based code, and just > move > >>> > > >> >> > towards having only a KIP-248-based tool. It's a breaking > >>> > > >> >> > change, but it's clear to users that it's occurring, and > what > >>> > > >> >> > the fix is (specifying --bootstrap-server instead of -- > >>> > > >> >> > zookeeper).> >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > best, > >>> > > >> >> > Colin > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >> >> Also rewrote the request semantics, hopefully it's more > clear > >>> > > >> >> >> now.> >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >> >> Let me know what do you think about this and thank you for > >>> > > >> >> >> your feedback.> >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >> >> Cheers, > >>> > > >> >> >> Viktor > >>> > > >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Colin McCabe > >>> > > >> >> >> <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:> >> >> >> > >>> > > >> >> >> > Hi Viktor, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> >> > If I'm reading the KIP right, it looks like the new > >>> > > >> >> >> > proposed verison of> >> >> >> > AlterConfigs sets an > OperationType on a per-config basis: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > AlterConfigs Request (Version: 1) => [resources] > >>> > > >> >> >> > > validate_only> >> >> >> > > validate_only => > BOOLEAN > >>> > > >> >> >> > > resources => resource_type resource_name [configs] > >>> > > >> >> >> > > resource_type => INT8 > >>> > > >> >> >> > > resource_name => STRING > >>> > > >> >> >> > > configs => config_name config_value > config_operation> >> >> >> > > config_name => STRING > >>> > > >> >> >> > > config_value => STRING > >>> > > >> >> >> > > config_operation => INT8 [NEW ADDITION] > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > Request Semantics: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > By default in the broker we parse an > >>> > > >> >> >> > > AlterConfigRequest version 0> >> >> >> > > > with Unknown operation and handle it with the currently > >>> > > >> >> >> > > existing> >> >> >> > behavior. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > Version 1 requests however must have the operation > set > >>> > > >> >> >> > > to other than> >> >> >> > > Unknown, otherwise an > InvalidRequestException will be > >>> > > >> >> >> > > thrown.> >> >> >> > > Set operation also > does Add if needed to be > >>> > > >> >> >> > > backward> >> >> >> > compatible > >>> > > >> >> >> > > with the existing ConfigCommand semantics. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> >> > However, this seems like a configuration that should be > >>> > > >> >> >> > global to the> >> >> >> > whole AlterConfigs request, > right? It doesn't make sense > >>> > > >> >> >> > to have one> >> >> >> > configuration key use > AlterOperation.Set and the other use> >> >> >> > AlterOperation.Add -- the > Set one specifies that we should > >>> > > >> >> >> > overwrite the> >> >> >> > whole node in ZK. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> >> > Another consideration here is that we should do this in > a > >>> > > >> >> >> > compatible> >> >> >> > fashion in AdminClient. > Existing code that relies on the > >>> > > >> >> >> > "set everything"> >> >> >> > behavior should not > break. The best way to do this is to > >>> > > >> >> >> > add a boolean to> >> >> >> > > ./clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/admin/Alt- > >>> > > >> >> >> > erConfigsOptions.java> >> >> >> > , specifying whether > we want to clear everything that > >>> > > >> >> >> > hasn't been> >> >> >> > specified, or not. This should > default to true so that > >>> > > >> >> >> > existing code can> >> >> >> > continue to work.... > Unless we believe that the existing > >>> > > >> >> >> > AlterConfigs> >> >> >> > behavior is so broken that it > should be changed, even in a> >> >> >> > compatibility-breaking way. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> >> > Similarly, for other tools, we managed to support both > the > >>> > > >> >> >> > zookeeper-based> >> >> >> > way and the new way in the > same tool for a while. This > >>> > > >> >> >> > seems like> >> >> >> > something users would really > want-- is it truly infeasible > >>> > > >> >> >> > to do here? The> >> >> >> > Java code could call into > the Scala code as necessary when > >>> > > >> >> >> > the zk flag was> >> >> >> > specified, right? > >>> > > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> >> > best, > >>> > > >> >> >> > Colin > >>> > > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> >> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, at 01:47, Magnus Edenhill wrote: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > Hi Viktor, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > after speaking to Rajini it seems like this KIP will > >>> > > >> >> >> > > allow clients to> >> >> >> > > perform incremental > configuration updates with > >>> > > >> >> >> > > AlterConfigs, only> >> >> >> > providing > >>> > > >> >> >> > > the settings > >>> > > >> >> >> > > that it wants to change, as opposed to the current > atomic > >>> > > >> >> >> > > behaviour where> >> >> >> > > all settings > >>> > > >> >> >> > > need to be provided to avoid having them revert to > their > >>> > > >> >> >> > > default values.> >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > If this is indeed the case, could you update the KIP > to > >>> > > >> >> >> > > make this more> >> >> >> > > clear? > >>> > > >> >> >> > > I.e., that using Version 1 of AlterConfigs has the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > incremental behaviour,> >> >> >> > > while > >>> > > >> >> >> > > version 0 is atomic. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > Thanks, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > Magnus > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > 2018-04-16 13:27 GMT+02:00 Viktor Somogyi > >>> > > >> >> >> > > <viktorsomo...@gmail.com>:> >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > Hi Rajini, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > The current ConfigCommand would still be possible to > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > use, therefore> >> >> >> > those > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > who wish to set up SCRAM or initial quotas would be > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > able to continue> >> >> >> > doing > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > it through kafka-run-class.sh. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > In an ideal world I'd keep it in the current > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > ConfigCommand command so> >> >> >> > we > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > wouldn't mix the zookeeper and admin client configs. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > Perhaps I could> >> >> >> > create > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > a kafka-configs-zookeeper.sh shell script for > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > shortening the> >> >> >> > > > kafka-run-class > command. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > What do you and others think? > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > Thanks, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > Viktor > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > >>> > > >> >> >> > rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > wrote: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > Hi Viktor, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > The KIP proposes to remove the ability to > configure > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > using ZooKeeper.> >> >> >> > This > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > means we will no longer have the ability to start > up > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > a cluster with> >> >> >> > SCRAM > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > credentials since we first need to create SCRAM > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > credentials before> >> >> >> > > > brokers > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > can start if the broker uses SCRAM for > inter-broker > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > communication> >> >> >> > and we > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > need SCRAM credentials for the AdminClient before > we > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > can create new> >> >> >> > ones. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > For quotas as well, we will no longer be able to > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > configure quotas> >> >> >> > until > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > at > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > least one broker has been started. Perhaps, we > ought > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > to retain the> >> >> >> > > > ability > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > to configure using ZooKeeper for these > initialization > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > scenarios and> >> >> >> > > > support > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > only AdminClient for dynamic updates? > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > What do others think? > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > Regards, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > Rajini > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Ted Yu > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > <yuzhih...@gmail.com>> >> >> >> > wrote: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > +1 > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > -------- Original message --------From: zhenya > Sun > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > <> >> >> >> > toke...@126.com> > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > Date: 4/15/18 12:42 AM (GMT-08:00) To: dev > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > <dev@kafka.apache.org> >> >> >> > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > Cc: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> Subject: Re: [VOTE] > #2 > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > KIP-248: Create> >> >> >> > New > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > ConfigCommand That Uses The New AdminClient > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > non-binding +1 > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > from my iphone！ > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > On 04/15/2018 15:41, Attila Sasvári wrote: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > Thanks for updating the KIP. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > Viktor Somogyi <viktorsomo...@gmail.com> ezt > írta > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > (időpont: 2018.> >> >> >> > ápr. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > 9., > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > H 16:49): > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > Hi Magnus, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > Thanks for the heads up, added the endianness > to > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > the KIP. Here> >> >> >> > is the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > current text: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > "Double > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > A new type needs to be added to transfer quota > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > values. Since the> >> >> >> > > > > protocol > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > classes in Kafka already uses ByteBuffers it > is > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > logical to use> >> >> >> > their > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > functionality for serializing doubles. The > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > serialization is> >> >> >> > > > basically a > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > representation of the specified floating-point > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > value according> >> >> >> > to the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > IEEE > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > 754 floating-point "double format" bit layout. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > The ByteBuffer> >> >> >> > > > > serializer > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > writes eight bytes containing the given double > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > value, in Big> >> >> >> > Endian > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > byte > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > order, into this buffer at the current > position, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > and then> >> >> >> > increments > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > position by eight. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > The implementation will be defined in > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > org.apache.kafka.common.protocol.types with > the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > other protocol> >> >> >> > types > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > and it > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > will have no default value much like the other > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > types available> >> >> >> > in the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > protocol." > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > Also, I haven't changed the protocol docs yet > but > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > will do so in> >> >> >> > my PR > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > for > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > this feature. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > Let me know if you'd still add something. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > Regards, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > Viktor > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Magnus > Edenhill <> >> >> >> > mag...@edenhill.se> > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > wrote: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Hi Viktor, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > since serialization of floats isn't as > straight > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > forward as> >> >> >> > > > integers, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > please > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > specify the exact serialization format of > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > DOUBLE in the> >> >> >> > protocol > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > docs > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > (e.g., IEEE 754), > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > including endianness (big-endian please). > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > This will help the non-java client > ecosystem. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Magnus > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > 2018-04-09 15:16 GMT+02:00 Viktor Somogyi < > >>> > > >> >> >> > viktorsomo...@gmail.com > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Hi Attila, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > 1. It uses ByteBuffers, which in turn will > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > use> >> >> >> > > > > > > Double.doubleToLongBits > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > to > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > convert the double value to a long and > that > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > long will be> >> >> >> > written > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > in > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > buffer. I'v updated the KIP with this. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > 2. Good idea, modified it. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > 3. During the discussion I remember we > didn't > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > really decide> >> >> >> > which > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > one > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > would > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > be the better one but I agree that a > wrapper > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > class that makes> >> >> >> > > > sure > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > list > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > that is used as a key is immutable is a > good > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > idea and would> >> >> >> > ease > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > life > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > of people using the interface. Also more > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > importantly would> >> >> >> > make > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > sure > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > that > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > we always use the same hashCode. I have > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > created wrapper> >> >> >> > classes > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > for > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > map > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > value as well but that was reverted to > keep > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > things> >> >> >> > consistent. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > Although > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > for > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > the key I think we wouldn't break > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > consistency. I updated the> >> >> >> > > KIP. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Thanks, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Viktor > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Attila > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Sasvári <> >> >> >> > > > > > asasv...@apache.org> > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for working on it Viktor. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > It looks good to me, but I have some > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > questions:> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - I see a new type DOUBLE is used for > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > quota_value , and it> >> >> >> > is > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > not > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > listed > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > among the primitive types on the Kafka > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > protocol guide. Can> >> >> >> > you > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > add > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > some > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > more details? > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > - I am not sure that using an > environment > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > (i.e.> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > USE_OLD_COMMAND)variable > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > is > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > the best way to control behaviour of > kafka- > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > config.sh . In> >> >> >> > other > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > scripts > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > (e.g. console-consumer) an argument is > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > passed (e.g.> >> >> >> > > > > > > --new-consumer). > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > If > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > we > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > still want to use it, then I would > suggest > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > something like> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > USE_OLD_KAFKA_CONFIG_COMMAND. What do you > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > think?> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > - I > have seen maps like > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Map<List<ConfigResource>,> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Collection<QuotaType>>. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > If List<ConfigResource> is the key type, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > you should make> >> >> >> > sure > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > that > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > this > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > List is immutable. Have you considered > to > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > introduce a new> >> >> >> > > > wrapper > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > class? > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Regards, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > - Attila > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:46 PM, zhenya > Sun > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > <> >> >> >> > toke...@126.com> > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > wrote: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > +1 （non-binding） > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > | | > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > zhenya Sun > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 邮箱：toke...@126.com > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > | > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 签名由 网易邮箱大师 定制 > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On 03/29/2018 19:40, Sandor Murakozi > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, Viktor > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:41 PM, > Viktor > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Somogyi <> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > viktorsomo...@gmail.com > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've started a vote on KIP-248 > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf > >>> > > >> >> >> > luence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > 248+-+Create+New+ > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ConfigCommand+That+Uses+The+ > New+AdminC- > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > lient#KIP-248-> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > CreateNewConfigCommandThatUsesTheNewAd- > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > minClient-> >> >> >> > > > > > > DescribeQuotas> > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > a few weeks ago but at the time I > got a > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > couple more> >> >> >> > > > comments > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > and > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > it > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > was > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > very close to 1.1 feature freeze, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > people were occupied> >> >> >> > > with > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > that, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > so > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > I > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wanted to restart the vote on this. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > *Summary of the KIP* > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > For those who don't have context I > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > thought I'd> >> >> >> > summarize it > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > in > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > a > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > few > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > sentence. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > *Problem & Motivation: *The basic > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > problem that the KIP> >> >> >> > > > > tries > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > to > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > solve > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > is > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > that kafka-configs.sh (which in turn > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > uses the> >> >> >> > ConfigCommand > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > class) > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > uses > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > a > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > direct zookeeper connection. This is > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not desirable as> >> >> >> > > > > getting > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > around > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > broker opens up security issues and > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > prevents the tool> >> >> >> > from > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > being > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > used > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > in > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > deployments where only the brokers > are > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > exposed to> >> >> >> > clients. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > Also a > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > somewhat > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > smaller motivation is to rewrite the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > tool in java as> >> >> >> > part > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > of > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > tools > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > component so we can get rid of > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > requiring the core> >> >> >> > > module on > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > the > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > classpath > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for the kafka-configs tool. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > *Solution:* > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - I've designed new 2 protocols: > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > DescribeQuotas and> >> >> >> > > > > > > AlterQuotas. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - Also redesigned the output format > of > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the command line> >> >> >> > > > > tool > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > so > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > it > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > provides > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > a nicer result. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - kafka-configs.[sh/bat] will use a > new > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > java based> >> >> >> > > > > > > ConfigCommand > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > that > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > is > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > placed in tools. > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd be happy to receive any votes or > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > feedback on this.> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Viktor > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > >>> > > >> >> >> > > >>> > > >
