Thanks Chris for the discussion.
Since nobody else expressed interest in this KIP, I'm going to discard it.
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 8:41 PM Chris Egerton wrote:
>
> Hi Mickael,
>
> I do sympathize with the desire for a "quick fix". I think your point about
> these being problematic to support
Hi Mickael,
I do sympathize with the desire for a "quick fix". I think your point about
these being problematic to support sums up my hesitation here pretty well,
both with respect to the potential footgun of unintended rebalances (should
users try to do more with this field than we expect), and
H Chris,
Thanks for taking a look.
1. Yes updating the description can potentially trigger a rebalance. I
don't expect users to frequently update the description so I thought
this was acceptable. I've added a note to the KIP to mention it.
2. The tags model you described could be interesting
Actually, I misspoke--a rebalance isn't triggered when an existing
connector's config is updated. Assuming the set of workers remains stable,
a rebalance is only necessary when a new connector is created, an existing
one is deleted, or a new set of task configs is generated.
This weakens the
Hi Mickael,
Thanks for the KIP!
While it's tempting to add this field to the out-of-the-box connector
config def, I'm a little hesitant, for two reasons.
1. Adding this directly to the connector config could have unintended
consequences on the actual data processing by the connector. Any time a
Hi,
I created a very small KIP to add a description field to connectors:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-908%3A+Add+description+field+to+connector+configuration
Let me know if you have any feedback.
Thanks,
Mickael
