Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hello Yishun, I looked further into the change needed on NetworkClient, comparing them with the changes on AdminClient / ConsumerNetworkClient, and I think it is indeed a quite large change needed on the latter two classes if we do not want to touch on NetworkClient. Colin's argument against having the changes on the NetworkClient is primarily that the NetworkClient should be ideally only be responsible for sending request out and receiving responses, and the current implementation already leaked a lot of the request-type related logic which makes it quite complicated, so further adding the conversion logic on it will make things worse. While I agree with the argument, I also feel that the changes on the higher-level classes (AdminClient and ConsumerNetworkClient) is more intrusive than we thought originally, which makes this optimization on the admin client less "cost-effective". If we want to just make this optimization on AdminClient I'm still fine with it (in Consumer since we are only going to ask for the coordinator of a single consumer always), or if you want to postpone this KIP that's also okay. Personally I felt guilty to let you dive into such a big scoped task without careful thinking beforehand than suggesting you to start with a much smaller task to work on. In case you want to find a smaller JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20KAFKA%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20labels%20in%20(%22newbie%2B%2B%22%2C%20newbie)%20ORDER%20BY%20assignee%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC Guozhang On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: > @Guozhang Wang What do you think? > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:39 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > After looking into AdminClient.java and ConsumerClient.java, following > > the original idea, I think some type specific codes are unavoidable > > (we can have a enum class that contain a list of batch-enabled APIs). > > As the compatibility codes that breaks down the batch, we need to > > either map one Builder to multiple Builders, or map one request to > > multiple requests. (I am not an expert, so I would love other's output > > on this.) This will be an extra conditional check before building or > > sending out a request. > > > > From my observation, now a batching optimization for request is only > > needed in KafkaAdminClient (In other words, we want to replace the > > for-loop with a batch request). That limited the scope of the > > optimization, maybe this optimization might seem a little trivial > > compare to the incompatible risk or inconsistency within codes that we > > might face? > > > > If we are not comfortable with making it "ugly and dirty" (or I just > > couldn't enough to come up with a balanced solution) within > > AdminNetworkClient.java and ConsumerNetworkClient.java, we should > > revisit this: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5353 or postpone > > this improvement? > > > > Thanks, > > Yishun > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > > Hi Collin and Guozhang, > > > > > > I see. But even if the fall-back logic goes into AdminClient and > ConsumerClient, it still have to be somehow type specific right? > > > So either way, there will be api-specific process code somewhere? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yishun > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 5:46 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Yishun, > > > > > > > > I agree with Guozhang. NetworkClient is the wrong place to put > things which are specific to a particular message type. NetworkClient > should not have to care what the type of the message is that it is sending. > > > > > > > > Adding type-specific handling is much more "ugly and dirty" than > adding some compatibility code to AdminClient and ConsumerClient. It is > true that there is some code duplication, but I think it will be minimal in > this case. > > > > > > > > best, > > > > Colin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, at 13:28, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > > > Hello Yishun, > > > > > > > > > > I reviewed the latest wiki page, and noticed that the special > handling > > > > > logic needs to be in the NetworkClient. > > > > > > > > > > Comparing it with another alternative way, i.e. we add the > fall-back logic > > > > > in the AdminClient, as well as in the ConsumerClient to capture the > > > > > UnsupportedException and fallback, because the two of them are > possibly > > > > > sending FindCoordinatorRequest (though for consumers today we do > not expect > > > > > it to send for more than one coordinator); personally I think the > current > > > > > approach is better, but I'd like to hear other people's opinion as > well > > > > > (cc'ed Colin, who implemented the AdminClient). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Yishun Guan > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I totally agree with you. Like I said, I think it is an > overkill > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
@Guozhang Wang What do you think? On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:39 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > > Hi All, > > After looking into AdminClient.java and ConsumerClient.java, following > the original idea, I think some type specific codes are unavoidable > (we can have a enum class that contain a list of batch-enabled APIs). > As the compatibility codes that breaks down the batch, we need to > either map one Builder to multiple Builders, or map one request to > multiple requests. (I am not an expert, so I would love other's output > on this.) This will be an extra conditional check before building or > sending out a request. > > From my observation, now a batching optimization for request is only > needed in KafkaAdminClient (In other words, we want to replace the > for-loop with a batch request). That limited the scope of the > optimization, maybe this optimization might seem a little trivial > compare to the incompatible risk or inconsistency within codes that we > might face? > > If we are not comfortable with making it "ugly and dirty" (or I just > couldn't enough to come up with a balanced solution) within > AdminNetworkClient.java and ConsumerNetworkClient.java, we should > revisit this: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5353 or postpone > this improvement? > > Thanks, > Yishun > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > Hi Collin and Guozhang, > > > > I see. But even if the fall-back logic goes into AdminClient and > > ConsumerClient, it still have to be somehow type specific right? > > So either way, there will be api-specific process code somewhere? > > > > Thanks, > > Yishun > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 5:46 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > > > > > > Hi Yishun, > > > > > > I agree with Guozhang. NetworkClient is the wrong place to put things > > > which are specific to a particular message type. NetworkClient should > > > not have to care what the type of the message is that it is sending. > > > > > > Adding type-specific handling is much more "ugly and dirty" than adding > > > some compatibility code to AdminClient and ConsumerClient. It is true > > > that there is some code duplication, but I think it will be minimal in > > > this case. > > > > > > best, > > > Colin > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, at 13:28, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > > Hello Yishun, > > > > > > > > I reviewed the latest wiki page, and noticed that the special handling > > > > logic needs to be in the NetworkClient. > > > > > > > > Comparing it with another alternative way, i.e. we add the fall-back > > > > logic > > > > in the AdminClient, as well as in the ConsumerClient to capture the > > > > UnsupportedException and fallback, because the two of them are possibly > > > > sending FindCoordinatorRequest (though for consumers today we do not > > > > expect > > > > it to send for more than one coordinator); personally I think the > > > > current > > > > approach is better, but I'd like to hear other people's opinion as well > > > > (cc'ed Colin, who implemented the AdminClient). > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I totally agree with you. Like I said, I think it is an overkill > > > > > for now, to make so many changes for a small improvement. > > > > > And like you said, the only way to do this is the "ugly and dirty" > > > > > way, do you think we should still apply this improvement? > > > > > > > > > > I updated a new BuildToList() (method name pending) and add a check > > > > > condition in the doSend(). > > > > > This is the KIP:https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > > 347%3A++Enable+batching+in+FindCoordinatorRequest > > > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Yishun > > > > > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:02 PM Guozhang Wang > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yishun, > > > > > > > > > > > > I was actually not suggesting we should immediately make such > > > > > > dramatic > > > > > > change on the AbstractRequest APIs which will affect all requests > > > > > > types, > > > > > > just clarifying if it is your intent or not, since your code > > > > > > snippet in > > > > > the > > > > > > KIP has "@Override" :) > > > > > > > > > > > > I think an alternative way is to add such a function for for > > > > > > FindCoordinator only, i.e. besides the overridden `public > > > > > > FindCoordinatorRequest build(short version)` we can have one more > > > > > function > > > > > > (note the function name need to be different since Java type erasure > > > > > caused > > > > > > it to not able to differentiate these two otherwise, but we can > > > > > > consider > > > > > a > > > > > > better name: buildMulti is only for illustration) > > > > > > > > > > > > public List buildMulti(short version) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It does mean that we now need to special-handle > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hi All, After looking into AdminClient.java and ConsumerClient.java, following the original idea, I think some type specific codes are unavoidable (we can have a enum class that contain a list of batch-enabled APIs). As the compatibility codes that breaks down the batch, we need to either map one Builder to multiple Builders, or map one request to multiple requests. (I am not an expert, so I would love other's output on this.) This will be an extra conditional check before building or sending out a request. >From my observation, now a batching optimization for request is only needed in KafkaAdminClient (In other words, we want to replace the for-loop with a batch request). That limited the scope of the optimization, maybe this optimization might seem a little trivial compare to the incompatible risk or inconsistency within codes that we might face? If we are not comfortable with making it "ugly and dirty" (or I just couldn't enough to come up with a balanced solution) within AdminNetworkClient.java and ConsumerNetworkClient.java, we should revisit this: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5353 or postpone this improvement? Thanks, Yishun On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > > Hi Collin and Guozhang, > > I see. But even if the fall-back logic goes into AdminClient and > ConsumerClient, it still have to be somehow type specific right? > So either way, there will be api-specific process code somewhere? > > Thanks, > Yishun > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 5:46 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > > > > Hi Yishun, > > > > I agree with Guozhang. NetworkClient is the wrong place to put things > > which are specific to a particular message type. NetworkClient should not > > have to care what the type of the message is that it is sending. > > > > Adding type-specific handling is much more "ugly and dirty" than adding > > some compatibility code to AdminClient and ConsumerClient. It is true that > > there is some code duplication, but I think it will be minimal in this case. > > > > best, > > Colin > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, at 13:28, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > Hello Yishun, > > > > > > I reviewed the latest wiki page, and noticed that the special handling > > > logic needs to be in the NetworkClient. > > > > > > Comparing it with another alternative way, i.e. we add the fall-back logic > > > in the AdminClient, as well as in the ConsumerClient to capture the > > > UnsupportedException and fallback, because the two of them are possibly > > > sending FindCoordinatorRequest (though for consumers today we do not > > > expect > > > it to send for more than one coordinator); personally I think the current > > > approach is better, but I'd like to hear other people's opinion as well > > > (cc'ed Colin, who implemented the AdminClient). > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > > > > > Yes, I totally agree with you. Like I said, I think it is an overkill > > > > for now, to make so many changes for a small improvement. > > > > And like you said, the only way to do this is the "ugly and dirty" > > > > way, do you think we should still apply this improvement? > > > > > > > > I updated a new BuildToList() (method name pending) and add a check > > > > condition in the doSend(). > > > > This is the KIP:https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > 347%3A++Enable+batching+in+FindCoordinatorRequest > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Yishun > > > > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:02 PM Guozhang Wang > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yishun, > > > > > > > > > > I was actually not suggesting we should immediately make such dramatic > > > > > change on the AbstractRequest APIs which will affect all requests > > > > > types, > > > > > just clarifying if it is your intent or not, since your code snippet > > > > > in > > > > the > > > > > KIP has "@Override" :) > > > > > > > > > > I think an alternative way is to add such a function for for > > > > > FindCoordinator only, i.e. besides the overridden `public > > > > > FindCoordinatorRequest build(short version)` we can have one more > > > > function > > > > > (note the function name need to be different since Java type erasure > > > > caused > > > > > it to not able to differentiate these two otherwise, but we can > > > > > consider > > > > a > > > > > better name: buildMulti is only for illustration) > > > > > > > > > > public List buildMulti(short version) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It does mean that we now need to special-handle > > > > > FindCoordinatorRequestBuilder in all callers from other requests, > > > > > which > > > > is > > > > > also a bit "ugly and dirty", but the change scope may be smaller. > > > > > General > > > > > changes on the AbstractRequestBuilder could be delayed until we > > > > > realize > > > > > this is a common usage for some other requests in their newer > > > > > versions as
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hi Collin and Guozhang, I see. But even if the fall-back logic goes into AdminClient and ConsumerClient, it still have to be somehow type specific right? So either way, there will be api-specific process code somewhere? Thanks, Yishun On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 5:46 PM Colin McCabe wrote: > > Hi Yishun, > > I agree with Guozhang. NetworkClient is the wrong place to put things which are specific to a particular message type. NetworkClient should not have to care what the type of the message is that it is sending. > > Adding type-specific handling is much more "ugly and dirty" than adding some compatibility code to AdminClient and ConsumerClient. It is true that there is some code duplication, but I think it will be minimal in this case. > > best, > Colin > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, at 13:28, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > Hello Yishun, > > > > I reviewed the latest wiki page, and noticed that the special handling > > logic needs to be in the NetworkClient. > > > > Comparing it with another alternative way, i.e. we add the fall-back logic > > in the AdminClient, as well as in the ConsumerClient to capture the > > UnsupportedException and fallback, because the two of them are possibly > > sending FindCoordinatorRequest (though for consumers today we do not expect > > it to send for more than one coordinator); personally I think the current > > approach is better, but I'd like to hear other people's opinion as well > > (cc'ed Colin, who implemented the AdminClient). > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > > > Yes, I totally agree with you. Like I said, I think it is an overkill > > > for now, to make so many changes for a small improvement. > > > And like you said, the only way to do this is the "ugly and dirty" > > > way, do you think we should still apply this improvement? > > > > > > I updated a new BuildToList() (method name pending) and add a check > > > condition in the doSend(). > > > This is the KIP:https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > 347%3A++Enable+batching+in+FindCoordinatorRequest > > > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yishun > > > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:02 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Yishun, > > > > > > > > I was actually not suggesting we should immediately make such dramatic > > > > change on the AbstractRequest APIs which will affect all requests types, > > > > just clarifying if it is your intent or not, since your code snippet in > > > the > > > > KIP has "@Override" :) > > > > > > > > I think an alternative way is to add such a function for for > > > > FindCoordinator only, i.e. besides the overridden `public > > > > FindCoordinatorRequest build(short version)` we can have one more > > > function > > > > (note the function name need to be different since Java type erasure > > > caused > > > > it to not able to differentiate these two otherwise, but we can consider > > > a > > > > better name: buildMulti is only for illustration) > > > > > > > > public List buildMulti(short version) > > > > > > > > > > > > It does mean that we now need to special-handle > > > > FindCoordinatorRequestBuilder in all callers from other requests, which > > > is > > > > also a bit "ugly and dirty", but the change scope may be smaller. General > > > > changes on the AbstractRequestBuilder could be delayed until we realize > > > > this is a common usage for some other requests in their newer versions as > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > > > > > > > Yes, you are right. I didn't notice T build() is bounded to > > > > AbstractRequest>. > > > > > I was originally thinking T could be an AbstractedRequest or List<> > > > > > but I was wrong. Now the return type has to change from T build() to > > > > > List build > > > > > where . As you mentioned, > > > > > this required a change for all the requests, probably need > > > > > a new KIP too, do you think. I will update this KIP accordingly first. > > > > > > > > > > However, do you see other benefits of changing the return type for > > > build()? > > > > > The original improvement that we want is this: > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6788. > > > > > It seems like we have to make a lot of structural changes for this > > > > > small improvement. > > > > > I think changing the return type might benefit the project in the > > > future, > > > > > but I don't know the project enough to say so. I would love to keep > > > > > working on this, > > > > > but do you see all these changes are worth for this story, > > > > > and if not, is there another way out? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Yishun > > > > > On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 11:04 AM Guozhang Wang > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Yishun, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. I think option 1), i.e. return
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hi Yishun, I agree with Guozhang. NetworkClient is the wrong place to put things which are specific to a particular message type. NetworkClient should not have to care what the type of the message is that it is sending. Adding type-specific handling is much more "ugly and dirty" than adding some compatibility code to AdminClient and ConsumerClient. It is true that there is some code duplication, but I think it will be minimal in this case. best, Colin On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, at 13:28, Guozhang Wang wrote: > Hello Yishun, > > I reviewed the latest wiki page, and noticed that the special handling > logic needs to be in the NetworkClient. > > Comparing it with another alternative way, i.e. we add the fall-back logic > in the AdminClient, as well as in the ConsumerClient to capture the > UnsupportedException and fallback, because the two of them are possibly > sending FindCoordinatorRequest (though for consumers today we do not expect > it to send for more than one coordinator); personally I think the current > approach is better, but I'd like to hear other people's opinion as well > (cc'ed Colin, who implemented the AdminClient). > > > Guozhang > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > Yes, I totally agree with you. Like I said, I think it is an overkill > > for now, to make so many changes for a small improvement. > > And like you said, the only way to do this is the "ugly and dirty" > > way, do you think we should still apply this improvement? > > > > I updated a new BuildToList() (method name pending) and add a check > > condition in the doSend(). > > This is the KIP:https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > 347%3A++Enable+batching+in+FindCoordinatorRequest > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > Thanks, > > Yishun > > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:02 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > > > > Hi Yishun, > > > > > > I was actually not suggesting we should immediately make such dramatic > > > change on the AbstractRequest APIs which will affect all requests types, > > > just clarifying if it is your intent or not, since your code snippet in > > the > > > KIP has "@Override" :) > > > > > > I think an alternative way is to add such a function for for > > > FindCoordinator only, i.e. besides the overridden `public > > > FindCoordinatorRequest build(short version)` we can have one more > > function > > > (note the function name need to be different since Java type erasure > > caused > > > it to not able to differentiate these two otherwise, but we can consider > > a > > > better name: buildMulti is only for illustration) > > > > > > public List buildMulti(short version) > > > > > > > > > It does mean that we now need to special-handle > > > FindCoordinatorRequestBuilder in all callers from other requests, which > > is > > > also a bit "ugly and dirty", but the change scope may be smaller. General > > > changes on the AbstractRequestBuilder could be delayed until we realize > > > this is a common usage for some other requests in their newer versions as > > > well. > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > > > > > Yes, you are right. I didn't notice T build() is bounded to > > > AbstractRequest>. > > > > I was originally thinking T could be an AbstractedRequest or List<> > > > > but I was wrong. Now the return type has to change from T build() to > > > > List build > > > > where . As you mentioned, > > > > this required a change for all the requests, probably need > > > > a new KIP too, do you think. I will update this KIP accordingly first. > > > > > > > > However, do you see other benefits of changing the return type for > > build()? > > > > The original improvement that we want is this: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6788. > > > > It seems like we have to make a lot of structural changes for this > > > > small improvement. > > > > I think changing the return type might benefit the project in the > > future, > > > > but I don't know the project enough to say so. I would love to keep > > > > working on this, > > > > but do you see all these changes are worth for this story, > > > > and if not, is there another way out? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Yishun > > > > On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 11:04 AM Guozhang Wang > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello Yishun, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. I think option 1), i.e. return multiple > > > > > requests from build() call is okay. Just to clarify: you are going to > > > > > change `AbstractRequest#build(short version)` signature, and hence > > all > > > > > requests need to be updated accordingly, but only FindCoordinator > > for may > > > > > return multiple requests in the list, while all others will return > > > > > singleton list, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Yishun Guan > > wrote: > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hello Yishun, I reviewed the latest wiki page, and noticed that the special handling logic needs to be in the NetworkClient. Comparing it with another alternative way, i.e. we add the fall-back logic in the AdminClient, as well as in the ConsumerClient to capture the UnsupportedException and fallback, because the two of them are possibly sending FindCoordinatorRequest (though for consumers today we do not expect it to send for more than one coordinator); personally I think the current approach is better, but I'd like to hear other people's opinion as well (cc'ed Colin, who implemented the AdminClient). Guozhang On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Yishun Guan wrote: > Hi Guozhang, > > Yes, I totally agree with you. Like I said, I think it is an overkill > for now, to make so many changes for a small improvement. > And like you said, the only way to do this is the "ugly and dirty" > way, do you think we should still apply this improvement? > > I updated a new BuildToList() (method name pending) and add a check > condition in the doSend(). > This is the KIP:https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > 347%3A++Enable+batching+in+FindCoordinatorRequest > > Let me know what you think. > > Thanks, > Yishun > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:02 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > > Hi Yishun, > > > > I was actually not suggesting we should immediately make such dramatic > > change on the AbstractRequest APIs which will affect all requests types, > > just clarifying if it is your intent or not, since your code snippet in > the > > KIP has "@Override" :) > > > > I think an alternative way is to add such a function for for > > FindCoordinator only, i.e. besides the overridden `public > > FindCoordinatorRequest build(short version)` we can have one more > function > > (note the function name need to be different since Java type erasure > caused > > it to not able to differentiate these two otherwise, but we can consider > a > > better name: buildMulti is only for illustration) > > > > public List buildMulti(short version) > > > > > > It does mean that we now need to special-handle > > FindCoordinatorRequestBuilder in all callers from other requests, which > is > > also a bit "ugly and dirty", but the change scope may be smaller. General > > changes on the AbstractRequestBuilder could be delayed until we realize > > this is a common usage for some other requests in their newer versions as > > well. > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > > > Yes, you are right. I didn't notice T build() is bounded to > > AbstractRequest>. > > > I was originally thinking T could be an AbstractedRequest or List<> > > > but I was wrong. Now the return type has to change from T build() to > > > List build > > > where . As you mentioned, > > > this required a change for all the requests, probably need > > > a new KIP too, do you think. I will update this KIP accordingly first. > > > > > > However, do you see other benefits of changing the return type for > build()? > > > The original improvement that we want is this: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6788. > > > It seems like we have to make a lot of structural changes for this > > > small improvement. > > > I think changing the return type might benefit the project in the > future, > > > but I don't know the project enough to say so. I would love to keep > > > working on this, > > > but do you see all these changes are worth for this story, > > > and if not, is there another way out? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yishun > > > On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 11:04 AM Guozhang Wang > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello Yishun, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. I think option 1), i.e. return multiple > > > > requests from build() call is okay. Just to clarify: you are going to > > > > change `AbstractRequest#build(short version)` signature, and hence > all > > > > requests need to be updated accordingly, but only FindCoordinator > for may > > > > return multiple requests in the list, while all others will return > > > > singleton list, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Yishun Guan > wrote: > > > > > > > > > @Guozhang Wang Could you review this again when you have time? > Thanks! > > > > > -Yishun > > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:57 AM Yishun Guan > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, because I have made some significant changes on this design, > so I > > > > > > want to reopen the discussion on this KIP: > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Yishun > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:06 PM Yishun Guan > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see! Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 4:35 PM Guozhang Wang < > wangg...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> It is not implemented, but should not be hard to do so (and > again > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hi Guozhang, Yes, I totally agree with you. Like I said, I think it is an overkill for now, to make so many changes for a small improvement. And like you said, the only way to do this is the "ugly and dirty" way, do you think we should still apply this improvement? I updated a new BuildToList() (method name pending) and add a check condition in the doSend(). This is the KIP:https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-347%3A++Enable+batching+in+FindCoordinatorRequest Let me know what you think. Thanks, Yishun On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:02 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > > Hi Yishun, > > I was actually not suggesting we should immediately make such dramatic > change on the AbstractRequest APIs which will affect all requests types, > just clarifying if it is your intent or not, since your code snippet in the > KIP has "@Override" :) > > I think an alternative way is to add such a function for for > FindCoordinator only, i.e. besides the overridden `public > FindCoordinatorRequest build(short version)` we can have one more function > (note the function name need to be different since Java type erasure caused > it to not able to differentiate these two otherwise, but we can consider a > better name: buildMulti is only for illustration) > > public List buildMulti(short version) > > > It does mean that we now need to special-handle > FindCoordinatorRequestBuilder in all callers from other requests, which is > also a bit "ugly and dirty", but the change scope may be smaller. General > changes on the AbstractRequestBuilder could be delayed until we realize > this is a common usage for some other requests in their newer versions as > well. > > > Guozhang > > > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > Yes, you are right. I didn't notice T build() is bounded to > AbstractRequest>. > > I was originally thinking T could be an AbstractedRequest or List<> > > but I was wrong. Now the return type has to change from T build() to > > List build > > where . As you mentioned, > > this required a change for all the requests, probably need > > a new KIP too, do you think. I will update this KIP accordingly first. > > > > However, do you see other benefits of changing the return type for build()? > > The original improvement that we want is this: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6788. > > It seems like we have to make a lot of structural changes for this > > small improvement. > > I think changing the return type might benefit the project in the future, > > but I don't know the project enough to say so. I would love to keep > > working on this, > > but do you see all these changes are worth for this story, > > and if not, is there another way out? > > > > Thanks, > > Yishun > > On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 11:04 AM Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > > > > Hello Yishun, > > > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. I think option 1), i.e. return multiple > > > requests from build() call is okay. Just to clarify: you are going to > > > change `AbstractRequest#build(short version)` signature, and hence all > > > requests need to be updated accordingly, but only FindCoordinator for may > > > return multiple requests in the list, while all others will return > > > singleton list, right? > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > > > @Guozhang Wang Could you review this again when you have time? Thanks! > > > > -Yishun > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:57 AM Yishun Guan > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, because I have made some significant changes on this design, so I > > > > > want to reopen the discussion on this KIP: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Yishun > > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:06 PM Yishun Guan > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I see! Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 4:35 PM Guozhang Wang > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> It is not implemented, but should not be hard to do so (and again > > you > > > > do > > > > > >> NOT have to do that in this KIP, I'm bringing this up so that you > > can > > > > help > > > > > >> thinking about the process). > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Quoting from Colin's comment: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> " > > > > > >> The pattern is that you would try to send a request for more than > > one > > > > > >> group, and then you would get an UnsupportedVersionException > > (nothing > > > > would > > > > > >> be sent on the wire, this is purely internal to the code). > > > > > >> Then your code would handle the UVE by creating requests with an > > older > > > > > >> version that only had one group each. > > > > > >> " > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Guozhang > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Yishun Guan > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Hi, I am looking into AdminClient.scala and AdminClient.java, > > and > > > > also > > > > > >> > looking into
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hi Yishun, I was actually not suggesting we should immediately make such dramatic change on the AbstractRequest APIs which will affect all requests types, just clarifying if it is your intent or not, since your code snippet in the KIP has "@Override" :) I think an alternative way is to add such a function for for FindCoordinator only, i.e. besides the overridden `public FindCoordinatorRequest build(short version)` we can have one more function (note the function name need to be different since Java type erasure caused it to not able to differentiate these two otherwise, but we can consider a better name: buildMulti is only for illustration) public List buildMulti(short version) It does mean that we now need to special-handle FindCoordinatorRequestBuilder in all callers from other requests, which is also a bit "ugly and dirty", but the change scope may be smaller. General changes on the AbstractRequestBuilder could be delayed until we realize this is a common usage for some other requests in their newer versions as well. Guozhang On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: > Hi Guozhang, > > Yes, you are right. I didn't notice T build() is bounded to AbstractRequest>. > I was originally thinking T could be an AbstractedRequest or List<> > but I was wrong. Now the return type has to change from T build() to > List build > where . As you mentioned, > this required a change for all the requests, probably need > a new KIP too, do you think. I will update this KIP accordingly first. > > However, do you see other benefits of changing the return type for build()? > The original improvement that we want is this: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6788. > It seems like we have to make a lot of structural changes for this > small improvement. > I think changing the return type might benefit the project in the future, > but I don't know the project enough to say so. I would love to keep > working on this, > but do you see all these changes are worth for this story, > and if not, is there another way out? > > Thanks, > Yishun > On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 11:04 AM Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > > Hello Yishun, > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. I think option 1), i.e. return multiple > > requests from build() call is okay. Just to clarify: you are going to > > change `AbstractRequest#build(short version)` signature, and hence all > > requests need to be updated accordingly, but only FindCoordinator for may > > return multiple requests in the list, while all others will return > > singleton list, right? > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > @Guozhang Wang Could you review this again when you have time? Thanks! > > > -Yishun > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:57 AM Yishun Guan > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, because I have made some significant changes on this design, so I > > > > want to reopen the discussion on this KIP: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Yishun > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:06 PM Yishun Guan > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I see! Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 4:35 PM Guozhang Wang > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> It is not implemented, but should not be hard to do so (and again > you > > > do > > > > >> NOT have to do that in this KIP, I'm bringing this up so that you > can > > > help > > > > >> thinking about the process). > > > > >> > > > > >> Quoting from Colin's comment: > > > > >> > > > > >> " > > > > >> The pattern is that you would try to send a request for more than > one > > > > >> group, and then you would get an UnsupportedVersionException > (nothing > > > would > > > > >> be sent on the wire, this is purely internal to the code). > > > > >> Then your code would handle the UVE by creating requests with an > older > > > > >> version that only had one group each. > > > > >> " > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Guozhang > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Yishun Guan > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi, I am looking into AdminClient.scala and AdminClient.java, > and > > > also > > > > >> > looking into ApiVersionRequest.java and ApiVersionResponse.java, > > > but I > > > > >> > don't see anywhere contains to logic of the one-to-one mapping > from > > > version > > > > >> > to version, am i looking at the right place? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM Guozhang Wang < > wangg...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Regarding 3): Today we do not have this logic with the > existing > > > client, > > > > >> > > because defer the decision about the version to use (we always > > > assume > > > > >> > that > > > > >> > > an new versioned request need to be down-converted to a > single old > > > > >> > > versioned request: i.e. an one-to-one mapping), but in > principle, > > > we > > > > >> > should > > > > >> > > be able to modify the client make it work. > > > > >> > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hi Guozhang, Yes, you are right. I didn't notice T build() is bounded to . I was originally thinking T could be an AbstractedRequest or List<> but I was wrong. Now the return type has to change from T build() to List build where . As you mentioned, this required a change for all the requests, probably need a new KIP too, do you think. I will update this KIP accordingly first. However, do you see other benefits of changing the return type for build()? The original improvement that we want is this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6788. It seems like we have to make a lot of structural changes for this small improvement. I think changing the return type might benefit the project in the future, but I don't know the project enough to say so. I would love to keep working on this, but do you see all these changes are worth for this story, and if not, is there another way out? Thanks, Yishun On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 11:04 AM Guozhang Wang wrote: > > Hello Yishun, > > Thanks for the updated KIP. I think option 1), i.e. return multiple > requests from build() call is okay. Just to clarify: you are going to > change `AbstractRequest#build(short version)` signature, and hence all > requests need to be updated accordingly, but only FindCoordinator for may > return multiple requests in the list, while all others will return > singleton list, right? > > > Guozhang > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > @Guozhang Wang Could you review this again when you have time? Thanks! > > -Yishun > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:57 AM Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > > Hi, because I have made some significant changes on this design, so I > > > want to reopen the discussion on this KIP: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yishun > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:06 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > > > > I see! Thanks! > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 4:35 PM Guozhang Wang > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> It is not implemented, but should not be hard to do so (and again you > > do > > > >> NOT have to do that in this KIP, I'm bringing this up so that you can > > help > > > >> thinking about the process). > > > >> > > > >> Quoting from Colin's comment: > > > >> > > > >> " > > > >> The pattern is that you would try to send a request for more than one > > > >> group, and then you would get an UnsupportedVersionException (nothing > > would > > > >> be sent on the wire, this is purely internal to the code). > > > >> Then your code would handle the UVE by creating requests with an older > > > >> version that only had one group each. > > > >> " > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Guozhang > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Yishun Guan > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi, I am looking into AdminClient.scala and AdminClient.java, and > > also > > > >> > looking into ApiVersionRequest.java and ApiVersionResponse.java, > > but I > > > >> > don't see anywhere contains to logic of the one-to-one mapping from > > version > > > >> > to version, am i looking at the right place? > > > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM Guozhang Wang > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Regarding 3): Today we do not have this logic with the existing > > client, > > > >> > > because defer the decision about the version to use (we always > > assume > > > >> > that > > > >> > > an new versioned request need to be down-converted to a single old > > > >> > > versioned request: i.e. an one-to-one mapping), but in principle, > > we > > > >> > should > > > >> > > be able to modify the client make it work. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Again this is not necessarily need to be included in this KIP, > > but I'd > > > >> > > recommend you to look into AdminClient implementations around the > > > >> > > ApiVersionRequest / Response and think about how that logic can be > > > >> > modified > > > >> > > in the follow-up PR of this KIP. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Guozhang > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Yishun Guan > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > @Guozhang, thank you so much! > > > >> > > > 1. I agree, fixed. > > > >> > > > 2. Added. > > > >> > > > 3. I see, that is something that I haven't think about. How > > does Kafka > > > >> > > > handle other api's different version problem now? So we have a > > specific > > > >> > > > convertor that convect a new version request to a old version > > one for > > > >> > > each > > > >> > > > API (is this what the ApiVersionsRequest supposed to do, does > > it only > > > >> > > > handle the detection or it should handle the conversion too)? > > What will > > > >> > > be > > > >> > > > the consequence of not having such a transformer but the > > version is > > > >> > > > incompatible? > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Best, > > > >> > > > Yishun > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM Guozhang Wang < > > wangg...@gmail.com> > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hello Yishun, Thanks for the updated KIP. I think option 1), i.e. return multiple requests from build() call is okay. Just to clarify: you are going to change `AbstractRequest#build(short version)` signature, and hence all requests need to be updated accordingly, but only FindCoordinator for may return multiple requests in the list, while all others will return singleton list, right? Guozhang On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Yishun Guan wrote: > @Guozhang Wang Could you review this again when you have time? Thanks! > -Yishun > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:57 AM Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > Hi, because I have made some significant changes on this design, so I > > want to reopen the discussion on this KIP: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ > > > > Thanks, > > Yishun > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:06 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > > I see! Thanks! > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 4:35 PM Guozhang Wang > wrote: > > >> > > >> It is not implemented, but should not be hard to do so (and again you > do > > >> NOT have to do that in this KIP, I'm bringing this up so that you can > help > > >> thinking about the process). > > >> > > >> Quoting from Colin's comment: > > >> > > >> " > > >> The pattern is that you would try to send a request for more than one > > >> group, and then you would get an UnsupportedVersionException (nothing > would > > >> be sent on the wire, this is purely internal to the code). > > >> Then your code would handle the UVE by creating requests with an older > > >> version that only had one group each. > > >> " > > >> > > >> > > >> Guozhang > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Yishun Guan > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi, I am looking into AdminClient.scala and AdminClient.java, and > also > > >> > looking into ApiVersionRequest.java and ApiVersionResponse.java, > but I > > >> > don't see anywhere contains to logic of the one-to-one mapping from > version > > >> > to version, am i looking at the right place? > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM Guozhang Wang > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Regarding 3): Today we do not have this logic with the existing > client, > > >> > > because defer the decision about the version to use (we always > assume > > >> > that > > >> > > an new versioned request need to be down-converted to a single old > > >> > > versioned request: i.e. an one-to-one mapping), but in principle, > we > > >> > should > > >> > > be able to modify the client make it work. > > >> > > > > >> > > Again this is not necessarily need to be included in this KIP, > but I'd > > >> > > recommend you to look into AdminClient implementations around the > > >> > > ApiVersionRequest / Response and think about how that logic can be > > >> > modified > > >> > > in the follow-up PR of this KIP. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Guozhang > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Yishun Guan > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > @Guozhang, thank you so much! > > >> > > > 1. I agree, fixed. > > >> > > > 2. Added. > > >> > > > 3. I see, that is something that I haven't think about. How > does Kafka > > >> > > > handle other api's different version problem now? So we have a > specific > > >> > > > convertor that convect a new version request to a old version > one for > > >> > > each > > >> > > > API (is this what the ApiVersionsRequest supposed to do, does > it only > > >> > > > handle the detection or it should handle the conversion too)? > What will > > >> > > be > > >> > > > the consequence of not having such a transformer but the > version is > > >> > > > incompatible? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Best, > > >> > > > Yishun > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM Guozhang Wang < > wangg...@gmail.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Hello Yishun, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I made a pass over the wiki and > here are > > >> > > > some > > >> > > > > comments: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 1. "DESCRIBE_GROUPS_RESPONSE_MEMBER_V0", why we need to > encode the > > >> > full > > >> > > > > schema for the "COORDINATOR_GROUPIDS_KEY_NAME" field? Note it > > >> > includes > > >> > > a > > >> > > > > lot of fields such as member id that is not needed for this > case. I > > >> > > > think a > > >> > > > > "new ArrayOf(String)" for the group ids should be sufficient. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 2. "schemaVersions" of the "FindCoordinatorRequest" needs to > include > > >> > > > > FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 as well. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 3. One thing you may need to consider is that, in the > adminClient to > > >> > > > handle > > >> > > > > broker compatibility, how to transform a new (v3) request to > a bunch > > >> > of > > >> > > > > (v2) requests if it detects the broker is still in old > version and > > >> > > hence > > >> > > > > cannot support v3 request (this logic is already implemented > via > > >> > > > > ApiVersionsRequest in AdminClient, but may need to be >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
@Guozhang Wang Could you review this again when you have time? Thanks! -Yishun On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:57 AM Yishun Guan wrote: > > Hi, because I have made some significant changes on this design, so I > want to reopen the discussion on this KIP: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ > > Thanks, > Yishun > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:06 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > I see! Thanks! > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 4:35 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > >> > >> It is not implemented, but should not be hard to do so (and again you do > >> NOT have to do that in this KIP, I'm bringing this up so that you can help > >> thinking about the process). > >> > >> Quoting from Colin's comment: > >> > >> " > >> The pattern is that you would try to send a request for more than one > >> group, and then you would get an UnsupportedVersionException (nothing would > >> be sent on the wire, this is purely internal to the code). > >> Then your code would handle the UVE by creating requests with an older > >> version that only had one group each. > >> " > >> > >> > >> Guozhang > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: > >> > >> > Hi, I am looking into AdminClient.scala and AdminClient.java, and also > >> > looking into ApiVersionRequest.java and ApiVersionResponse.java, but I > >> > don't see anywhere contains to logic of the one-to-one mapping from > >> > version > >> > to version, am i looking at the right place? > >> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > >> > > >> > > Regarding 3): Today we do not have this logic with the existing client, > >> > > because defer the decision about the version to use (we always assume > >> > that > >> > > an new versioned request need to be down-converted to a single old > >> > > versioned request: i.e. an one-to-one mapping), but in principle, we > >> > should > >> > > be able to modify the client make it work. > >> > > > >> > > Again this is not necessarily need to be included in this KIP, but I'd > >> > > recommend you to look into AdminClient implementations around the > >> > > ApiVersionRequest / Response and think about how that logic can be > >> > modified > >> > > in the follow-up PR of this KIP. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Guozhang > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Yishun Guan > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > @Guozhang, thank you so much! > >> > > > 1. I agree, fixed. > >> > > > 2. Added. > >> > > > 3. I see, that is something that I haven't think about. How does > >> > > > Kafka > >> > > > handle other api's different version problem now? So we have a > >> > > > specific > >> > > > convertor that convect a new version request to a old version one for > >> > > each > >> > > > API (is this what the ApiVersionsRequest supposed to do, does it only > >> > > > handle the detection or it should handle the conversion too)? What > >> > > > will > >> > > be > >> > > > the consequence of not having such a transformer but the version is > >> > > > incompatible? > >> > > > > >> > > > Best, > >> > > > Yishun > >> > > > > >> > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM Guozhang Wang > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hello Yishun, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I made a pass over the wiki and here > >> > > > > are > >> > > > some > >> > > > > comments: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 1. "DESCRIBE_GROUPS_RESPONSE_MEMBER_V0", why we need to encode the > >> > full > >> > > > > schema for the "COORDINATOR_GROUPIDS_KEY_NAME" field? Note it > >> > includes > >> > > a > >> > > > > lot of fields such as member id that is not needed for this case. I > >> > > > think a > >> > > > > "new ArrayOf(String)" for the group ids should be sufficient. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 2. "schemaVersions" of the "FindCoordinatorRequest" needs to > >> > > > > include > >> > > > > FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 as well. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 3. One thing you may need to consider is that, in the adminClient > >> > > > > to > >> > > > handle > >> > > > > broker compatibility, how to transform a new (v3) request to a > >> > > > > bunch > >> > of > >> > > > > (v2) requests if it detects the broker is still in old version and > >> > > hence > >> > > > > cannot support v3 request (this logic is already implemented via > >> > > > > ApiVersionsRequest in AdminClient, but may need to be extended to > >> > > handle > >> > > > > one-to-many mapping of different versions). > >> > > > > > >> > > > > This is not sth. that you need to implement under this KIP, but I'd > >> > > > > recommend you think about this earlier than later and see if it may > >> > > > affect > >> > > > > this proposal. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Guozhang > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Yishun Guan > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, thank you Ted! I have addressed your comments: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. Added more descriptions about later optimization. > >> > > > > > 2. Yes, I will
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hi, because I have made some significant changes on this design, so I want to reopen the discussion on this KIP: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ Thanks, Yishun On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 5:06 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > > I see! Thanks! > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 4:35 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: >> >> It is not implemented, but should not be hard to do so (and again you do >> NOT have to do that in this KIP, I'm bringing this up so that you can help >> thinking about the process). >> >> Quoting from Colin's comment: >> >> " >> The pattern is that you would try to send a request for more than one >> group, and then you would get an UnsupportedVersionException (nothing would >> be sent on the wire, this is purely internal to the code). >> Then your code would handle the UVE by creating requests with an older >> version that only had one group each. >> " >> >> >> Guozhang >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: >> >> > Hi, I am looking into AdminClient.scala and AdminClient.java, and also >> > looking into ApiVersionRequest.java and ApiVersionResponse.java, but I >> > don't see anywhere contains to logic of the one-to-one mapping from version >> > to version, am i looking at the right place? >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: >> > >> > > Regarding 3): Today we do not have this logic with the existing client, >> > > because defer the decision about the version to use (we always assume >> > that >> > > an new versioned request need to be down-converted to a single old >> > > versioned request: i.e. an one-to-one mapping), but in principle, we >> > should >> > > be able to modify the client make it work. >> > > >> > > Again this is not necessarily need to be included in this KIP, but I'd >> > > recommend you to look into AdminClient implementations around the >> > > ApiVersionRequest / Response and think about how that logic can be >> > modified >> > > in the follow-up PR of this KIP. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Guozhang >> > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: >> > > >> > > > @Guozhang, thank you so much! >> > > > 1. I agree, fixed. >> > > > 2. Added. >> > > > 3. I see, that is something that I haven't think about. How does Kafka >> > > > handle other api's different version problem now? So we have a specific >> > > > convertor that convect a new version request to a old version one for >> > > each >> > > > API (is this what the ApiVersionsRequest supposed to do, does it only >> > > > handle the detection or it should handle the conversion too)? What will >> > > be >> > > > the consequence of not having such a transformer but the version is >> > > > incompatible? >> > > > >> > > > Best, >> > > > Yishun >> > > > >> > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM Guozhang Wang >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hello Yishun, >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I made a pass over the wiki and here are >> > > > some >> > > > > comments: >> > > > > >> > > > > 1. "DESCRIBE_GROUPS_RESPONSE_MEMBER_V0", why we need to encode the >> > full >> > > > > schema for the "COORDINATOR_GROUPIDS_KEY_NAME" field? Note it >> > includes >> > > a >> > > > > lot of fields such as member id that is not needed for this case. I >> > > > think a >> > > > > "new ArrayOf(String)" for the group ids should be sufficient. >> > > > > >> > > > > 2. "schemaVersions" of the "FindCoordinatorRequest" needs to include >> > > > > FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 as well. >> > > > > >> > > > > 3. One thing you may need to consider is that, in the adminClient to >> > > > handle >> > > > > broker compatibility, how to transform a new (v3) request to a bunch >> > of >> > > > > (v2) requests if it detects the broker is still in old version and >> > > hence >> > > > > cannot support v3 request (this logic is already implemented via >> > > > > ApiVersionsRequest in AdminClient, but may need to be extended to >> > > handle >> > > > > one-to-many mapping of different versions). >> > > > > >> > > > > This is not sth. that you need to implement under this KIP, but I'd >> > > > > recommend you think about this earlier than later and see if it may >> > > > affect >> > > > > this proposal. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Guozhang >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Yishun Guan >> > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, thank you Ted! I have addressed your comments: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. Added more descriptions about later optimization. >> > > > > > 2. Yes, I will implement the V3 later when this KIP gets accepted. >> > > > > > 3. Fixed. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > Yishun >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:32 PM Ted Yu >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > bq. this is the foundation of some later possible >> > > > optimizations(enable >> > > > > > > batching in *describeConsumerGroups ...* >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > *Can you say more why this change lays the foundation for the >> > > future >> > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
I see! Thanks! On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 4:35 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > It is not implemented, but should not be hard to do so (and again you do > NOT have to do that in this KIP, I'm bringing this up so that you can help > thinking about the process). > > Quoting from Colin's comment: > > " > The pattern is that you would try to send a request for more than one > group, and then you would get an UnsupportedVersionException (nothing would > be sent on the wire, this is purely internal to the code). > Then your code would handle the UVE by creating requests with an older > version that only had one group each. > " > > > Guozhang > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > Hi, I am looking into AdminClient.scala and AdminClient.java, and also > > looking into ApiVersionRequest.java and ApiVersionResponse.java, but I > > don't see anywhere contains to logic of the one-to-one mapping from > version > > to version, am i looking at the right place? > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM Guozhang Wang > wrote: > > > > > Regarding 3): Today we do not have this logic with the existing client, > > > because defer the decision about the version to use (we always assume > > that > > > an new versioned request need to be down-converted to a single old > > > versioned request: i.e. an one-to-one mapping), but in principle, we > > should > > > be able to modify the client make it work. > > > > > > Again this is not necessarily need to be included in this KIP, but I'd > > > recommend you to look into AdminClient implementations around the > > > ApiVersionRequest / Response and think about how that logic can be > > modified > > > in the follow-up PR of this KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Yishun Guan > wrote: > > > > > > > @Guozhang, thank you so much! > > > > 1. I agree, fixed. > > > > 2. Added. > > > > 3. I see, that is something that I haven't think about. How does > Kafka > > > > handle other api's different version problem now? So we have a > specific > > > > convertor that convect a new version request to a old version one for > > > each > > > > API (is this what the ApiVersionsRequest supposed to do, does it only > > > > handle the detection or it should handle the conversion too)? What > will > > > be > > > > the consequence of not having such a transformer but the version is > > > > incompatible? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Yishun > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM Guozhang Wang > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello Yishun, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I made a pass over the wiki and here > are > > > > some > > > > > comments: > > > > > > > > > > 1. "DESCRIBE_GROUPS_RESPONSE_MEMBER_V0", why we need to encode the > > full > > > > > schema for the "COORDINATOR_GROUPIDS_KEY_NAME" field? Note it > > includes > > > a > > > > > lot of fields such as member id that is not needed for this case. I > > > > think a > > > > > "new ArrayOf(String)" for the group ids should be sufficient. > > > > > > > > > > 2. "schemaVersions" of the "FindCoordinatorRequest" needs to > include > > > > > FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 as well. > > > > > > > > > > 3. One thing you may need to consider is that, in the adminClient > to > > > > handle > > > > > broker compatibility, how to transform a new (v3) request to a > bunch > > of > > > > > (v2) requests if it detects the broker is still in old version and > > > hence > > > > > cannot support v3 request (this logic is already implemented via > > > > > ApiVersionsRequest in AdminClient, but may need to be extended to > > > handle > > > > > one-to-many mapping of different versions). > > > > > > > > > > This is not sth. that you need to implement under this KIP, but I'd > > > > > recommend you think about this earlier than later and see if it may > > > > affect > > > > > this proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Yishun Guan > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, thank you Ted! I have addressed your comments: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Added more descriptions about later optimization. > > > > > > 2. Yes, I will implement the V3 later when this KIP gets > accepted. > > > > > > 3. Fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Yishun > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:32 PM Ted Yu > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > bq. this is the foundation of some later possible > > > > optimizations(enable > > > > > > > batching in *describeConsumerGroups ...* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Can you say more why this change lays the foundation for the > > > future > > > > > > > optimizations ?* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *You mentioned **FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 in the wiki but I > > > don't > > > > > see > > > > > > it > > > > > > > in PR.* > > > > > > > *I assume you would add that later.* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Please read your wiki and fix grammatical error such as the > > > > > following:* > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
It is not implemented, but should not be hard to do so (and again you do NOT have to do that in this KIP, I'm bringing this up so that you can help thinking about the process). Quoting from Colin's comment: " The pattern is that you would try to send a request for more than one group, and then you would get an UnsupportedVersionException (nothing would be sent on the wire, this is purely internal to the code). Then your code would handle the UVE by creating requests with an older version that only had one group each. " Guozhang On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: > Hi, I am looking into AdminClient.scala and AdminClient.java, and also > looking into ApiVersionRequest.java and ApiVersionResponse.java, but I > don't see anywhere contains to logic of the one-to-one mapping from version > to version, am i looking at the right place? > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > Regarding 3): Today we do not have this logic with the existing client, > > because defer the decision about the version to use (we always assume > that > > an new versioned request need to be down-converted to a single old > > versioned request: i.e. an one-to-one mapping), but in principle, we > should > > be able to modify the client make it work. > > > > Again this is not necessarily need to be included in this KIP, but I'd > > recommend you to look into AdminClient implementations around the > > ApiVersionRequest / Response and think about how that logic can be > modified > > in the follow-up PR of this KIP. > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > @Guozhang, thank you so much! > > > 1. I agree, fixed. > > > 2. Added. > > > 3. I see, that is something that I haven't think about. How does Kafka > > > handle other api's different version problem now? So we have a specific > > > convertor that convect a new version request to a old version one for > > each > > > API (is this what the ApiVersionsRequest supposed to do, does it only > > > handle the detection or it should handle the conversion too)? What will > > be > > > the consequence of not having such a transformer but the version is > > > incompatible? > > > > > > Best, > > > Yishun > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM Guozhang Wang > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello Yishun, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I made a pass over the wiki and here are > > > some > > > > comments: > > > > > > > > 1. "DESCRIBE_GROUPS_RESPONSE_MEMBER_V0", why we need to encode the > full > > > > schema for the "COORDINATOR_GROUPIDS_KEY_NAME" field? Note it > includes > > a > > > > lot of fields such as member id that is not needed for this case. I > > > think a > > > > "new ArrayOf(String)" for the group ids should be sufficient. > > > > > > > > 2. "schemaVersions" of the "FindCoordinatorRequest" needs to include > > > > FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 as well. > > > > > > > > 3. One thing you may need to consider is that, in the adminClient to > > > handle > > > > broker compatibility, how to transform a new (v3) request to a bunch > of > > > > (v2) requests if it detects the broker is still in old version and > > hence > > > > cannot support v3 request (this logic is already implemented via > > > > ApiVersionsRequest in AdminClient, but may need to be extended to > > handle > > > > one-to-many mapping of different versions). > > > > > > > > This is not sth. that you need to implement under this KIP, but I'd > > > > recommend you think about this earlier than later and see if it may > > > affect > > > > this proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Yishun Guan > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, thank you Ted! I have addressed your comments: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Added more descriptions about later optimization. > > > > > 2. Yes, I will implement the V3 later when this KIP gets accepted. > > > > > 3. Fixed. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Yishun > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:32 PM Ted Yu > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > bq. this is the foundation of some later possible > > > optimizations(enable > > > > > > batching in *describeConsumerGroups ...* > > > > > > > > > > > > *Can you say more why this change lays the foundation for the > > future > > > > > > optimizations ?* > > > > > > > > > > > > *You mentioned **FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 in the wiki but I > > don't > > > > see > > > > > it > > > > > > in PR.* > > > > > > *I assume you would add that later.* > > > > > > > > > > > > *Please read your wiki and fix grammatical error such as the > > > > following:* > > > > > > > > > > > > bq. that need to be make > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:55 PM Yishun Guan > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion on: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hi, I am looking into AdminClient.scala and AdminClient.java, and also looking into ApiVersionRequest.java and ApiVersionResponse.java, but I don't see anywhere contains to logic of the one-to-one mapping from version to version, am i looking at the right place? On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > Regarding 3): Today we do not have this logic with the existing client, > because defer the decision about the version to use (we always assume that > an new versioned request need to be down-converted to a single old > versioned request: i.e. an one-to-one mapping), but in principle, we should > be able to modify the client make it work. > > Again this is not necessarily need to be included in this KIP, but I'd > recommend you to look into AdminClient implementations around the > ApiVersionRequest / Response and think about how that logic can be modified > in the follow-up PR of this KIP. > > > > Guozhang > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > @Guozhang, thank you so much! > > 1. I agree, fixed. > > 2. Added. > > 3. I see, that is something that I haven't think about. How does Kafka > > handle other api's different version problem now? So we have a specific > > convertor that convect a new version request to a old version one for > each > > API (is this what the ApiVersionsRequest supposed to do, does it only > > handle the detection or it should handle the conversion too)? What will > be > > the consequence of not having such a transformer but the version is > > incompatible? > > > > Best, > > Yishun > > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM Guozhang Wang > wrote: > > > > > Hello Yishun, > > > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I made a pass over the wiki and here are > > some > > > comments: > > > > > > 1. "DESCRIBE_GROUPS_RESPONSE_MEMBER_V0", why we need to encode the full > > > schema for the "COORDINATOR_GROUPIDS_KEY_NAME" field? Note it includes > a > > > lot of fields such as member id that is not needed for this case. I > > think a > > > "new ArrayOf(String)" for the group ids should be sufficient. > > > > > > 2. "schemaVersions" of the "FindCoordinatorRequest" needs to include > > > FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 as well. > > > > > > 3. One thing you may need to consider is that, in the adminClient to > > handle > > > broker compatibility, how to transform a new (v3) request to a bunch of > > > (v2) requests if it detects the broker is still in old version and > hence > > > cannot support v3 request (this logic is already implemented via > > > ApiVersionsRequest in AdminClient, but may need to be extended to > handle > > > one-to-many mapping of different versions). > > > > > > This is not sth. that you need to implement under this KIP, but I'd > > > recommend you think about this earlier than later and see if it may > > affect > > > this proposal. > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Yishun Guan > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, thank you Ted! I have addressed your comments: > > > > > > > > 1. Added more descriptions about later optimization. > > > > 2. Yes, I will implement the V3 later when this KIP gets accepted. > > > > 3. Fixed. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Yishun > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:32 PM Ted Yu wrote: > > > > > > > > > bq. this is the foundation of some later possible > > optimizations(enable > > > > > batching in *describeConsumerGroups ...* > > > > > > > > > > *Can you say more why this change lays the foundation for the > future > > > > > optimizations ?* > > > > > > > > > > *You mentioned **FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 in the wiki but I > don't > > > see > > > > it > > > > > in PR.* > > > > > *I assume you would add that later.* > > > > > > > > > > *Please read your wiki and fix grammatical error such as the > > > following:* > > > > > > > > > > bq. that need to be make > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:55 PM Yishun Guan > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion on: > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks @Guozhang Wang for his help and > > > patience! > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Yishun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Regarding 3): Today we do not have this logic with the existing client, because defer the decision about the version to use (we always assume that an new versioned request need to be down-converted to a single old versioned request: i.e. an one-to-one mapping), but in principle, we should be able to modify the client make it work. Again this is not necessarily need to be included in this KIP, but I'd recommend you to look into AdminClient implementations around the ApiVersionRequest / Response and think about how that logic can be modified in the follow-up PR of this KIP. Guozhang On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Yishun Guan wrote: > @Guozhang, thank you so much! > 1. I agree, fixed. > 2. Added. > 3. I see, that is something that I haven't think about. How does Kafka > handle other api's different version problem now? So we have a specific > convertor that convect a new version request to a old version one for each > API (is this what the ApiVersionsRequest supposed to do, does it only > handle the detection or it should handle the conversion too)? What will be > the consequence of not having such a transformer but the version is > incompatible? > > Best, > Yishun > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > Hello Yishun, > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I made a pass over the wiki and here are > some > > comments: > > > > 1. "DESCRIBE_GROUPS_RESPONSE_MEMBER_V0", why we need to encode the full > > schema for the "COORDINATOR_GROUPIDS_KEY_NAME" field? Note it includes a > > lot of fields such as member id that is not needed for this case. I > think a > > "new ArrayOf(String)" for the group ids should be sufficient. > > > > 2. "schemaVersions" of the "FindCoordinatorRequest" needs to include > > FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 as well. > > > > 3. One thing you may need to consider is that, in the adminClient to > handle > > broker compatibility, how to transform a new (v3) request to a bunch of > > (v2) requests if it detects the broker is still in old version and hence > > cannot support v3 request (this logic is already implemented via > > ApiVersionsRequest in AdminClient, but may need to be extended to handle > > one-to-many mapping of different versions). > > > > This is not sth. that you need to implement under this KIP, but I'd > > recommend you think about this earlier than later and see if it may > affect > > this proposal. > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > Hi, thank you Ted! I have addressed your comments: > > > > > > 1. Added more descriptions about later optimization. > > > 2. Yes, I will implement the V3 later when this KIP gets accepted. > > > 3. Fixed. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yishun > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:32 PM Ted Yu wrote: > > > > > > > bq. this is the foundation of some later possible > optimizations(enable > > > > batching in *describeConsumerGroups ...* > > > > > > > > *Can you say more why this change lays the foundation for the future > > > > optimizations ?* > > > > > > > > *You mentioned **FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 in the wiki but I don't > > see > > > it > > > > in PR.* > > > > *I assume you would add that later.* > > > > > > > > *Please read your wiki and fix grammatical error such as the > > following:* > > > > > > > > bq. that need to be make > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:55 PM Yishun Guan > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion on: > > > > > > > > > > KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ > > > > > > > > > > Thanks @Guozhang Wang for his help and > > patience! > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Yishun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > > -- -- Guozhang
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
@Guozhang, thank you so much! 1. I agree, fixed. 2. Added. 3. I see, that is something that I haven't think about. How does Kafka handle other api's different version problem now? So we have a specific convertor that convect a new version request to a old version one for each API (is this what the ApiVersionsRequest supposed to do, does it only handle the detection or it should handle the conversion too)? What will be the consequence of not having such a transformer but the version is incompatible? Best, Yishun On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM Guozhang Wang wrote: > Hello Yishun, > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I made a pass over the wiki and here are some > comments: > > 1. "DESCRIBE_GROUPS_RESPONSE_MEMBER_V0", why we need to encode the full > schema for the "COORDINATOR_GROUPIDS_KEY_NAME" field? Note it includes a > lot of fields such as member id that is not needed for this case. I think a > "new ArrayOf(String)" for the group ids should be sufficient. > > 2. "schemaVersions" of the "FindCoordinatorRequest" needs to include > FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 as well. > > 3. One thing you may need to consider is that, in the adminClient to handle > broker compatibility, how to transform a new (v3) request to a bunch of > (v2) requests if it detects the broker is still in old version and hence > cannot support v3 request (this logic is already implemented via > ApiVersionsRequest in AdminClient, but may need to be extended to handle > one-to-many mapping of different versions). > > This is not sth. that you need to implement under this KIP, but I'd > recommend you think about this earlier than later and see if it may affect > this proposal. > > > Guozhang > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Yishun Guan wrote: > > > Hi, thank you Ted! I have addressed your comments: > > > > 1. Added more descriptions about later optimization. > > 2. Yes, I will implement the V3 later when this KIP gets accepted. > > 3. Fixed. > > > > Thanks, > > Yishun > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:32 PM Ted Yu wrote: > > > > > bq. this is the foundation of some later possible optimizations(enable > > > batching in *describeConsumerGroups ...* > > > > > > *Can you say more why this change lays the foundation for the future > > > optimizations ?* > > > > > > *You mentioned **FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 in the wiki but I don't > see > > it > > > in PR.* > > > *I assume you would add that later.* > > > > > > *Please read your wiki and fix grammatical error such as the > following:* > > > > > > bq. that need to be make > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:55 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion on: > > > > > > > > KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ > > > > > > > > Thanks @Guozhang Wang for his help and > patience! > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Yishun > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hello Yishun, Thanks for the proposed KIP. I made a pass over the wiki and here are some comments: 1. "DESCRIBE_GROUPS_RESPONSE_MEMBER_V0", why we need to encode the full schema for the "COORDINATOR_GROUPIDS_KEY_NAME" field? Note it includes a lot of fields such as member id that is not needed for this case. I think a "new ArrayOf(String)" for the group ids should be sufficient. 2. "schemaVersions" of the "FindCoordinatorRequest" needs to include FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 as well. 3. One thing you may need to consider is that, in the adminClient to handle broker compatibility, how to transform a new (v3) request to a bunch of (v2) requests if it detects the broker is still in old version and hence cannot support v3 request (this logic is already implemented via ApiVersionsRequest in AdminClient, but may need to be extended to handle one-to-many mapping of different versions). This is not sth. that you need to implement under this KIP, but I'd recommend you think about this earlier than later and see if it may affect this proposal. Guozhang On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Yishun Guan wrote: > Hi, thank you Ted! I have addressed your comments: > > 1. Added more descriptions about later optimization. > 2. Yes, I will implement the V3 later when this KIP gets accepted. > 3. Fixed. > > Thanks, > Yishun > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:32 PM Ted Yu wrote: > > > bq. this is the foundation of some later possible optimizations(enable > > batching in *describeConsumerGroups ...* > > > > *Can you say more why this change lays the foundation for the future > > optimizations ?* > > > > *You mentioned **FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 in the wiki but I don't see > it > > in PR.* > > *I assume you would add that later.* > > > > *Please read your wiki and fix grammatical error such as the following:* > > > > bq. that need to be make > > > > Thanks > > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:55 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion on: > > > > > > KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ > > > > > > Thanks @Guozhang Wang for his help and patience! > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yishun > > > > > > -- -- Guozhang
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hi, thank you Ted! I have addressed your comments: 1. Added more descriptions about later optimization. 2. Yes, I will implement the V3 later when this KIP gets accepted. 3. Fixed. Thanks, Yishun On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:32 PM Ted Yu wrote: > bq. this is the foundation of some later possible optimizations(enable > batching in *describeConsumerGroups ...* > > *Can you say more why this change lays the foundation for the future > optimizations ?* > > *You mentioned **FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 in the wiki but I don't see it > in PR.* > *I assume you would add that later.* > > *Please read your wiki and fix grammatical error such as the following:* > > bq. that need to be make > > Thanks > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:55 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to start a discussion on: > > > > KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ > > > > Thanks @Guozhang Wang for his help and patience! > > > > Thanks, > > Yishun > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
bq. this is the foundation of some later possible optimizations(enable batching in *describeConsumerGroups ...* *Can you say more why this change lays the foundation for the future optimizations ?* *You mentioned **FIND_COORDINATOR_REQUEST_V3 in the wiki but I don't see it in PR.* *I assume you would add that later.* *Please read your wiki and fix grammatical error such as the following:* bq. that need to be make Thanks On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:55 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to start a discussion on: > > KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ > > Thanks @Guozhang Wang for his help and patience! > > Thanks, > Yishun >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
It would be great if I could get some feedbacks on this KIP, thanks! On Thu, Aug 9, 2018, 10:35 AM Yishun Guan wrote: > To add more context for KIP-347: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5353 > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:55 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I would like to start a discussion on: >> >> KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ >> >> Thanks @Guozhang Wang for his help and patience! >> >> Thanks, >> Yishun >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
To add more context for KIP-347: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5353 On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:55 PM Yishun Guan wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to start a discussion on: > > KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ > > Thanks @Guozhang Wang for his help and patience! > > Thanks, > Yishun >
[DISCUSS] KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest
Hi all, I would like to start a discussion on: KIP-347: Enable batching in FindCoordinatorRequest https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/CgZPBQ Thanks @Guozhang Wang for his help and patience! Thanks, Yishun
