atform
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Can the streaming platform exist without stream processing? -
> > No.
> > > > > > > >Processing stream data again is a core part of streaming
> > platform.
> > > > > > > >
>
gt; > > >
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Are you saying Kafka REST is subjective but Kafka Streams and
> > > Kafka
> > > > > > >Connect
> > > > > > >> are not s
>> > getting data from Kafka and leverages quite a few of the core
> > > > > >> > functionalities in Kafka core. For example, it uses customized
> > > > > >>rebalance
> > > > > >> > callback in the consumer
gt; > > > >doesn't
> > > > >> > need to be tightly integrated with Kafka core. So, the case for
> > > > >including
> > > > >> > rest proxy in Apache Kafka is probably not as strong as Kafka
> > Stream
> > > > >&
> > > >>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > So from my reading essentially the first question needs to
> > > >answered/and
> > > >> > > voted on is:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Is Apache Kafka Community only about the
the following should be removed:
> > >> > > Kafka Connect
> > >> > > Kafka Stream
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If vote for Core only loses (aka we will support subprojects)
> then:
> > >> > > We should look to add Kafka Rest
> > >> > >
> > >> > > And we should look
; > the PMC but at a per module basis.
> >> > >
> >> > > This MMC should essentially hold the binding votes for that module.
> >> > > The MMC should be made up of a single representative from each
> >> > > organisation (so no single organisa
> has to a genuine consenus)
>> > > The MMC requires at least 3 members (so there cant be a tied vote on
>2)
>> > > For a new Module to be added a MMC committee should be sought
>> > > A new Module is only capable of being added if the above
>>requirements
>> can
&
gt; > > have a
> > > > >responsive community or wants to go in a different direction
> fork
> > or
> > > > >recreate that work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course any person can choose whatever of these options they
> wan
if none are forthcoming
> > dropping
> > > the MMC to less than 3 then the module moves to "the attic" (very much
> > like
> > > apache attic but a little more aggressively)
> > >
> > > This way the PMC does not need to micro manage every mod
is inactive,
> a
> > > vote/call to find replacements if raised, if none are forthcoming
> > dropping
> > > the MMC to less than 3 then the module moves to "the attic" (very much
> > like
> > > apache attic but a little more aggressively)
> >
> driven by opening a github issue request. Its the repository owned
> by
> > > > confluent and as much I appreciate that the features we mentioned are
> > in
> > > > the roadmap and welcoming us to contribute to the project. It doesn't
> > > > gurantee w
upport and maintenance
> and use is provided by the community
> We have an automatic way to retire old or inactive projects.
>
> Thoughts?
> Mike
>
>
> ____
> From: Harsha Ch
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:26 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
>
> > > > > "But I haven't seen any community emails or patches being submitted
> > by
> > > > you
> > > > > guys, so I'm wondering why you are concerned about whether the
> > > community
> > > > is
> > > > > o
>
>
> ________________
> From: Harsha Ch
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:26 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-80: Kafka REST Server
>
> Jay,
> REST API is something every user
maintenance
> and use is provided by the community
> We have an automatic way to retire old or inactive projects.
>
> Thoughts?
> Mike
>
>
> ____________
> From: Harsha Ch
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:26 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-80: Kafk
gt; > I agree on the governance comments whole heartedly.
> > > >
> > > > Also i agree about the contribution comments made earlier in the
> > thread,
> > > i
> > > > personally am less likely to spend any of mine, or give project
Thoughts?
Mike
From: Harsha Ch
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:26 PM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-80: Kafka REST Server
Jay,
REST API is something every user is in need of. If the argument is to
clone and write your API, th
n the
> > thread,
> > > i
> > > > personally am less likely to spend any of mine, or give project time
> > > within
> > > > my internal projects to developers contributing to another commercial
> > > > companies project even so technicall
why we have community open
> source
> > > projects.
> > >
> > > I can find many different implementations now of a rest endpoint on
> > > GitHub, BitBucket etc. Each one has their benefits and disadvantages in
> > > their implementation. By making /
e roadmap and welcoming us to contribute to the project. It doesn't
> > > > gurantee what we want to add in the furture will be in your roadmap.
> > > >
> > > > Hence the reason having it part of Kafka community will help a lot as
> > > other
&g
7, 2016 at 11:52 PM Michael Pearce
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > I agree on the governance comments whole heartedly.
> > > >
> > > > Also i agree about the contribution comments made earlier in the
> > thread,
> > > i
> > >
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:52 PM Michael Pearce
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > I agree on the governance comments whole heartedly.
> > > >
> > > > Also i agree about the contribution
vail and essentially can
> > > always have a final vote where disagreement. Im sure they never intend
> > to,
> > > but there is that true reality. This is why we have community open
> source
> > > projects.
> > >
> > > I can find many differen
ing one this would bring together
> > these solutions, unifying those developers and also bringing the best of
> > all.
> >
> > I understand the concern on the community burden adding/supporting more
> > surface area for every client. But something like REST is u
a for every client. But something like REST is universal and
> worthy to be owned by the community.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> From: Andrew Schofield
> Sent: Saturday, October 8, 2016 1:19 AM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCU
@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-80: Kafka REST Server
There's a massive difference between the governance of Kafka and the governance
of the REST proxy.
In Kafka, there is a broad community of people contributing their opinions
about future enhancements in the form of KIPs. There's s
ontributed to
Apache Kafka so that it would be able to be developed in the same way.
Andrew Schofield
From: Suresh Srinivas
Sent: 07 October 2016 22:41:52
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-80: Kafka REST Server
ASF already gives us a clear framework and governance mode
ASF already gives us a clear framework and governance model for community
development. This is already understood by the people contributing to
Apache Kafka project, and they are the same people who want to contribute
to the REST server capability as well. Everyone is in agreement on the
need for c
Harsha/Mani,
I completely agree that adding admin API support and security are important
features for the Kafka REST proxy. Luckily the roadmap items that you
mentioned as being important for a Kafka REST proxy server are exactly the
ones the community working on this REST proxy want to add to it
Ofir,
…
" personally think it would be quite wasteful to re-implement the REST
gateway just because that an actively-maintained piece of Apache-licensed
software is not governed directly by the Apache Kafka community... While
kafka-rest repo is owned by Confluent, the contributors including the
Ofir,
" personally think it would be quite wasteful to re-implement the REST
gateway just because that an actively-maintained piece of Apache-licensed
software is not governed directly by the Apache Kafka community... While
kafka-rest repo is owned by Confluent, the contributors including the m
Hi Manikumar,
I agree totally agree that REST is important. What I don't understand is
why we'd duplicate the existing REST interface inside the Kafka project.
That seems to needlessly fragment things.
-Jay
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 5:38 AM, Manikumar wrote:
> Hi Jay,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
I personally think it would be quite wasteful to re-implement the REST
gateway just because that an actively-maintained piece of Apache-licensed
software is not governed directly by the Apache Kafka community... While
kafka-rest repo is owned by Confluent, the contributors including the main
one ar
gt;
> Harsha Chintalapani wrote on 02/10/2016 21:23:15:
>
> > From: Harsha Chintalapani
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > Date: 02/10/2016 21:23
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-80: Kafka REST Server
> >
> > Neha & Jay,
> > We did look at the open
ni wrote on 02/10/2016 21:23:15:
> From: Harsha Chintalapani
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Date: 02/10/2016 21:23
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-80: Kafka REST Server
>
> Neha & Jay,
> We did look at the open source alternatives. Our
concern
> is what
+ 1 to rest client (don't mind if it's the current confluent version or
something else)
We are a multi language company and the quality of the other clients that
are not Java are really hit and miss. A rest endpoint a user could just
pump messages into or subscribe to would be amazing.
On Sun, Oc
Neha & Jay,
We did look at the open source alternatives. Our concern
is what's the patch acceptance and adding features/ bug-fixes to the
existing project under a Github (although it's licensed under Apache 2.0).
It would be great if that project made available under Apache and dri
Manikumar,
Thanks for sharing the proposal. I think there are 2 parts to this
discussion -
1. Should we rewrite a REST proxy given that there is a feature-complete,
open-source and actively maintained REST proxy in the community?
2. Does adding a REST proxy to Apache Kafka make us more agile and
Hi Jay,
Thanks for your reply.
I agree that we can not add all the clients/tools available in ecosystem
page to Kafka repo itself. But we feel REST Interface is different from
other clients/tools. Since any language that can work with HTTP can
easily integrate with this interface, Having an "offi
Hey guys,
There's already a REST interface maintained as a separate project--it's
open source and apache licensed and actively maintained (
https://github.com/confluentinc/kafka-rest). What is wrong with that? You
mentioned that there was some compatibility concern, but compatibility has
to do wit
Thanks Mani for the KIP. I'll go over it and add my thoughts on this thread.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:04 AM Manikumar
wrote:
> Hi Kafka Devs,
>
> I created KIP-80 to add Kafka REST Server to Kafka Repository.
>
> There are already open-source alternatives are available. But we would
> like to
42 matches
Mail list logo
