Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Looks great. Thanks again, Arjun! On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 1:17 AM Arjun Satish wrote: > Answers inline > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:06 PM Randall Hauch wrote: > > > Thanks for the updates, Arjun. If possible, it'd be great to have the KIP > > clarify a few things: > > > > 1) IIUC, the loggers returned by the GET methods are only those loggers > > that have been activated/used/set in the JVM. If this is the case, this > > should be specified. > > > > The GET methods should return all initialized loggers (ancestors and the > ones created by runtime classes). > > > > > > 2) It's possible to set a log level on an ancestor of other loggers, so > we > > should also specify whether or not ancestors are included in the GET > > responses. Doing so would be helpful, but might not be feasible since two > > different descendants might have different log levels. > > > > The ancestors are also specified in the GET responses. Updated the KIP to > highlight this. > > > > > > Otherwise this looks good! > > > > Best regards, > > > > Randall > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:15 AM Arjun Satish > > wrote: > > > > > Good catch, Randall. Yes, we should be able to set the level of any > > logger > > > given its name. If this is an ancestor, then the levels of all child > > > classes are updated. I updated the KIP to be more explicit about what > > > loggers we can set, and how they affect child classes, if any. > > > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:02 PM Randall Hauch > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, Arjun. It's going to be really nice to be able to > > set > > > > the log levels dynamically, especially through the REST API. > > > > > > > > However, I think it's not clear what behavior the KIP is actually > > > proposing > > > > with respect to which loggers are exposed (just those that are used, > or > > > > common ancestors) and the behavior when I change the log level on a > > > > specific logger (is just that logger affected, or are descendants > > > affected, > > > > too). > > > > > > > > For example, in a Log4J configuration file we can set the logger for > > > > packages (e.g., `org.apache.kafka`, `org.apache.kafka.connect`, etc.) > > or > > > > classes (e.g., `org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.WorkerSinkTask`). > > > Really, > > > > those are just conventions, because if the code created a logger for > > the > > > > "kafka.connect.worker" context then we could set that, too. So by > > > > convention, the loggers map to Kafka classes and packages. > > > > > > > > But it's unclear what behavior the KIP is proposing. Are the > > intermediate > > > > loggers such as all packages exposed as loggers? If so, if I set the > > > logger > > > > on `org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime`, will this set the log level > for > > > all > > > > loggers below this? > > > > > > > > My concern is that if the behavior is (a) only concrete classes, > and/or > > > (b) > > > > setting a log level for a specific logger sets only that logger, then > > > this > > > > deviates from what our users are familiar with when setting the log > > > levels > > > > in the Log4J configuration files, and would be a difficult user > > > experience > > > > if I have to set 30+ loggers rather than 1 or 2. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:04 PM Jason Gustafson > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Arjun. +1 > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:58 AM Gwen Shapira > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The new REST API for logger management looks great to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Arjun Satish < > > arjun.sat...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bumping this thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are no further comments, please add your votes here: > > > > > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg100313.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > > > > Arjun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:22 PM Arjun Satish < > > > arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Jason! Answers inline. I'll also modify the kip > > to > > > > make > > > > > > > > these clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:01 PM Jason Gustafson < > > > ja...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Arjun, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> The updated KIP looks good. Just a couple questions: > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> 1. Is the /admin endpoint on the normal listener by default? > > If > > > > not, > > > > > > is > > > > > > > >> there a way to have it use the same listener? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uses the normal listener by default. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. Changes to logging configuration are not intended to be > > > > > > persistent, is > > > > > > > >> that right? Also, I assume changes only apply to the worker > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Answers inline On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 5:06 PM Randall Hauch wrote: > Thanks for the updates, Arjun. If possible, it'd be great to have the KIP > clarify a few things: > > 1) IIUC, the loggers returned by the GET methods are only those loggers > that have been activated/used/set in the JVM. If this is the case, this > should be specified. > The GET methods should return all initialized loggers (ancestors and the ones created by runtime classes). > > 2) It's possible to set a log level on an ancestor of other loggers, so we > should also specify whether or not ancestors are included in the GET > responses. Doing so would be helpful, but might not be feasible since two > different descendants might have different log levels. > The ancestors are also specified in the GET responses. Updated the KIP to highlight this. > > Otherwise this looks good! > > Best regards, > > Randall > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:15 AM Arjun Satish > wrote: > > > Good catch, Randall. Yes, we should be able to set the level of any > logger > > given its name. If this is an ancestor, then the levels of all child > > classes are updated. I updated the KIP to be more explicit about what > > loggers we can set, and how they affect child classes, if any. > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > Best, > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:02 PM Randall Hauch wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, Arjun. It's going to be really nice to be able to > set > > > the log levels dynamically, especially through the REST API. > > > > > > However, I think it's not clear what behavior the KIP is actually > > proposing > > > with respect to which loggers are exposed (just those that are used, or > > > common ancestors) and the behavior when I change the log level on a > > > specific logger (is just that logger affected, or are descendants > > affected, > > > too). > > > > > > For example, in a Log4J configuration file we can set the logger for > > > packages (e.g., `org.apache.kafka`, `org.apache.kafka.connect`, etc.) > or > > > classes (e.g., `org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.WorkerSinkTask`). > > Really, > > > those are just conventions, because if the code created a logger for > the > > > "kafka.connect.worker" context then we could set that, too. So by > > > convention, the loggers map to Kafka classes and packages. > > > > > > But it's unclear what behavior the KIP is proposing. Are the > intermediate > > > loggers such as all packages exposed as loggers? If so, if I set the > > logger > > > on `org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime`, will this set the log level for > > all > > > loggers below this? > > > > > > My concern is that if the behavior is (a) only concrete classes, and/or > > (b) > > > setting a log level for a specific logger sets only that logger, then > > this > > > deviates from what our users are familiar with when setting the log > > levels > > > in the Log4J configuration files, and would be a difficult user > > experience > > > if I have to set 30+ loggers rather than 1 or 2. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:04 PM Jason Gustafson > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks Arjun. +1 > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:58 AM Gwen Shapira > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The new REST API for logger management looks great to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Arjun Satish < > arjun.sat...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Bumping this thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are no further comments, please add your votes here: > > > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg100313.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > > > Arjun > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:22 PM Arjun Satish < > > arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Jason! Answers inline. I'll also modify the kip > to > > > make > > > > > > > these clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:01 PM Jason Gustafson < > > ja...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Arjun, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The updated KIP looks good. Just a couple questions: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 1. Is the /admin endpoint on the normal listener by default? > If > > > not, > > > > > is > > > > > > >> there a way to have it use the same listener? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uses the normal listener by default. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. Changes to logging configuration are not intended to be > > > > > persistent, is > > > > > > >> that right? Also, I assume changes only apply to the worker > that > > > > > received > > > > > > >> the request? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes will not be persistent and only apply to the worker > that > > > > > received > > > > > > > the request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > >> Jason > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:25 AM Arjun Satish < > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Thanks for the updates, Arjun. If possible, it'd be great to have the KIP clarify a few things: 1) IIUC, the loggers returned by the GET methods are only those loggers that have been activated/used/set in the JVM. If this is the case, this should be specified. 2) It's possible to set a log level on an ancestor of other loggers, so we should also specify whether or not ancestors are included in the GET responses. Doing so would be helpful, but might not be feasible since two different descendants might have different log levels. Otherwise this looks good! Best regards, Randall On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:15 AM Arjun Satish wrote: > Good catch, Randall. Yes, we should be able to set the level of any logger > given its name. If this is an ancestor, then the levels of all child > classes are updated. I updated the KIP to be more explicit about what > loggers we can set, and how they affect child classes, if any. > > Let me know what you think. > > Best, > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:02 PM Randall Hauch wrote: > > > Thanks for the KIP, Arjun. It's going to be really nice to be able to set > > the log levels dynamically, especially through the REST API. > > > > However, I think it's not clear what behavior the KIP is actually > proposing > > with respect to which loggers are exposed (just those that are used, or > > common ancestors) and the behavior when I change the log level on a > > specific logger (is just that logger affected, or are descendants > affected, > > too). > > > > For example, in a Log4J configuration file we can set the logger for > > packages (e.g., `org.apache.kafka`, `org.apache.kafka.connect`, etc.) or > > classes (e.g., `org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.WorkerSinkTask`). > Really, > > those are just conventions, because if the code created a logger for the > > "kafka.connect.worker" context then we could set that, too. So by > > convention, the loggers map to Kafka classes and packages. > > > > But it's unclear what behavior the KIP is proposing. Are the intermediate > > loggers such as all packages exposed as loggers? If so, if I set the > logger > > on `org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime`, will this set the log level for > all > > loggers below this? > > > > My concern is that if the behavior is (a) only concrete classes, and/or > (b) > > setting a log level for a specific logger sets only that logger, then > this > > deviates from what our users are familiar with when setting the log > levels > > in the Log4J configuration files, and would be a difficult user > experience > > if I have to set 30+ loggers rather than 1 or 2. > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:04 PM Jason Gustafson > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks Arjun. +1 > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:58 AM Gwen Shapira > wrote: > > > > > > > The new REST API for logger management looks great to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Arjun Satish > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Bumping this thread. > > > > > > > > > > If there are no further comments, please add your votes here: > > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg100313.html > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > > Arjun > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:22 PM Arjun Satish < > arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Jason! Answers inline. I'll also modify the kip to > > make > > > > > > these clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:01 PM Jason Gustafson < > ja...@confluent.io > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Arjun, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The updated KIP looks good. Just a couple questions: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 1. Is the /admin endpoint on the normal listener by default? If > > not, > > > > is > > > > > >> there a way to have it use the same listener? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Uses the normal listener by default. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. Changes to logging configuration are not intended to be > > > > persistent, is > > > > > >> that right? Also, I assume changes only apply to the worker that > > > > received > > > > > >> the request? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes will not be persistent and only apply to the worker that > > > > received > > > > > > the request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > >> Jason > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:25 AM Arjun Satish < > > > arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > OK. I didn't realize the plan was to deprecate and remove the > > JMX > > > > > >> endpoint. > > > > > >> > KIP-412 says brokers will continue to expose the JMX API. JMX > > was > > > > > >> selected > > > > > >> > so all components could follow the brokers. In light of this, > I > > > > think we > > > > > >> > should simply aim for semantic equivalency across the > different > > > API > > > > for > > > > > >> > this functionality. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > REST is convenient for Connect. We can modify the KIP to have >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Good catch, Randall. Yes, we should be able to set the level of any logger given its name. If this is an ancestor, then the levels of all child classes are updated. I updated the KIP to be more explicit about what loggers we can set, and how they affect child classes, if any. Let me know what you think. Best, On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 5:02 PM Randall Hauch wrote: > Thanks for the KIP, Arjun. It's going to be really nice to be able to set > the log levels dynamically, especially through the REST API. > > However, I think it's not clear what behavior the KIP is actually proposing > with respect to which loggers are exposed (just those that are used, or > common ancestors) and the behavior when I change the log level on a > specific logger (is just that logger affected, or are descendants affected, > too). > > For example, in a Log4J configuration file we can set the logger for > packages (e.g., `org.apache.kafka`, `org.apache.kafka.connect`, etc.) or > classes (e.g., `org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.WorkerSinkTask`). Really, > those are just conventions, because if the code created a logger for the > "kafka.connect.worker" context then we could set that, too. So by > convention, the loggers map to Kafka classes and packages. > > But it's unclear what behavior the KIP is proposing. Are the intermediate > loggers such as all packages exposed as loggers? If so, if I set the logger > on `org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime`, will this set the log level for all > loggers below this? > > My concern is that if the behavior is (a) only concrete classes, and/or (b) > setting a log level for a specific logger sets only that logger, then this > deviates from what our users are familiar with when setting the log levels > in the Log4J configuration files, and would be a difficult user experience > if I have to set 30+ loggers rather than 1 or 2. > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:04 PM Jason Gustafson > wrote: > > > Thanks Arjun. +1 > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:58 AM Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > > > The new REST API for logger management looks great to me. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Arjun Satish > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Bumping this thread. > > > > > > > > If there are no further comments, please add your votes here: > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg100313.html > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Arjun > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:22 PM Arjun Satish > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Jason! Answers inline. I'll also modify the kip to > make > > > > > these clear. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:01 PM Jason Gustafson > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Arjun, > > > > >> > > > > >> The updated KIP looks good. Just a couple questions: > > > > >> > > > > >> 1. Is the /admin endpoint on the normal listener by default? If > not, > > > is > > > > >> there a way to have it use the same listener? > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Uses the normal listener by default. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. Changes to logging configuration are not intended to be > > > persistent, is > > > > >> that right? Also, I assume changes only apply to the worker that > > > received > > > > >> the request? > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Changes will not be persistent and only apply to the worker that > > > received > > > > > the request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Jason > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:25 AM Arjun Satish < > > arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > OK. I didn't realize the plan was to deprecate and remove the > JMX > > > > >> endpoint. > > > > >> > KIP-412 says brokers will continue to expose the JMX API. JMX > was > > > > >> selected > > > > >> > so all components could follow the brokers. In light of this, I > > > think we > > > > >> > should simply aim for semantic equivalency across the different > > API > > > for > > > > >> > this functionality. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > REST is convenient for Connect. We can modify the KIP to have a > > > /admin > > > > >> > endpoint, and /admin/loggers specifically for getting/setting > the > > > log > > > > >> > levels of different loggers. The /admin/loggers will only impact > > > loggers > > > > >> > running in the specific worker we target requests to, and upon > > > > >> restarting > > > > >> > the worker, these loggers will reset back to their original > level. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Since configuring the rest server already has multiple config > > keys, > > > I am > > > > >> > inclined to bundle this /admin endpoint on to the same listener, > > and > > > > >> > provide a single new config key that enables or disables the > > entire > > > > >> /admin > > > > >> > endpoint. This keeps the initial approach simple and doesn't > > require > > > > >> users > > > > >> > to configure/discover a new endpoint. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > If this works with you all, I can update the KIP. Please let me > > know > > > > >> what > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Thanks for the KIP, Arjun. It's going to be really nice to be able to set the log levels dynamically, especially through the REST API. However, I think it's not clear what behavior the KIP is actually proposing with respect to which loggers are exposed (just those that are used, or common ancestors) and the behavior when I change the log level on a specific logger (is just that logger affected, or are descendants affected, too). For example, in a Log4J configuration file we can set the logger for packages (e.g., `org.apache.kafka`, `org.apache.kafka.connect`, etc.) or classes (e.g., `org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime.WorkerSinkTask`). Really, those are just conventions, because if the code created a logger for the "kafka.connect.worker" context then we could set that, too. So by convention, the loggers map to Kafka classes and packages. But it's unclear what behavior the KIP is proposing. Are the intermediate loggers such as all packages exposed as loggers? If so, if I set the logger on `org.apache.kafka.connect.runtime`, will this set the log level for all loggers below this? My concern is that if the behavior is (a) only concrete classes, and/or (b) setting a log level for a specific logger sets only that logger, then this deviates from what our users are familiar with when setting the log levels in the Log4J configuration files, and would be a difficult user experience if I have to set 30+ loggers rather than 1 or 2. On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:04 PM Jason Gustafson wrote: > Thanks Arjun. +1 > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:58 AM Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > The new REST API for logger management looks great to me. > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Arjun Satish > > wrote: > > > > > > Bumping this thread. > > > > > > If there are no further comments, please add your votes here: > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg100313.html > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > Arjun > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:22 PM Arjun Satish > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks a lot, Jason! Answers inline. I'll also modify the kip to make > > > > these clear. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:01 PM Jason Gustafson > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Arjun, > > > >> > > > >> The updated KIP looks good. Just a couple questions: > > > >> > > > >> 1. Is the /admin endpoint on the normal listener by default? If not, > > is > > > >> there a way to have it use the same listener? > > > >> > > > > > > > > Uses the normal listener by default. > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. Changes to logging configuration are not intended to be > > persistent, is > > > >> that right? Also, I assume changes only apply to the worker that > > received > > > >> the request? > > > >> > > > > > > > > Changes will not be persistent and only apply to the worker that > > received > > > > the request. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Jason > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:25 AM Arjun Satish < > arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > OK. I didn't realize the plan was to deprecate and remove the JMX > > > >> endpoint. > > > >> > KIP-412 says brokers will continue to expose the JMX API. JMX was > > > >> selected > > > >> > so all components could follow the brokers. In light of this, I > > think we > > > >> > should simply aim for semantic equivalency across the different > API > > for > > > >> > this functionality. > > > >> > > > > >> > REST is convenient for Connect. We can modify the KIP to have a > > /admin > > > >> > endpoint, and /admin/loggers specifically for getting/setting the > > log > > > >> > levels of different loggers. The /admin/loggers will only impact > > loggers > > > >> > running in the specific worker we target requests to, and upon > > > >> restarting > > > >> > the worker, these loggers will reset back to their original level. > > > >> > > > > >> > Since configuring the rest server already has multiple config > keys, > > I am > > > >> > inclined to bundle this /admin endpoint on to the same listener, > and > > > >> > provide a single new config key that enables or disables the > entire > > > >> /admin > > > >> > endpoint. This keeps the initial approach simple and doesn't > require > > > >> users > > > >> > to configure/discover a new endpoint. > > > >> > > > > >> > If this works with you all, I can update the KIP. Please let me > know > > > >> what > > > >> > you think. > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks everyone. > > > >> > > > > >> > Best, > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:14 AM Colin McCabe > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019, at 14:03, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > > >> > > > Hi Arjun, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > From a high level, I feel like we are making light of the JMX > > api > > > >> > because > > > >> > > > it's convenient and the broker already has it. Personally I > > would > > > >> take > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > > broker out of the picture. The JMX endpoint is not something > we > > were > > > >> > > happy > > > >>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Thanks Arjun. +1 On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:58 AM Gwen Shapira wrote: > The new REST API for logger management looks great to me. > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Arjun Satish > wrote: > > > > Bumping this thread. > > > > If there are no further comments, please add your votes here: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg100313.html > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Arjun > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:22 PM Arjun Satish > wrote: > > > > > Thanks a lot, Jason! Answers inline. I'll also modify the kip to make > > > these clear. > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:01 PM Jason Gustafson > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Arjun, > > >> > > >> The updated KIP looks good. Just a couple questions: > > >> > > >> 1. Is the /admin endpoint on the normal listener by default? If not, > is > > >> there a way to have it use the same listener? > > >> > > > > > > Uses the normal listener by default. > > > > > > > > >> 2. Changes to logging configuration are not intended to be > persistent, is > > >> that right? Also, I assume changes only apply to the worker that > received > > >> the request? > > >> > > > > > > Changes will not be persistent and only apply to the worker that > received > > > the request. > > > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > >> Jason > > >> > > >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:25 AM Arjun Satish > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > OK. I didn't realize the plan was to deprecate and remove the JMX > > >> endpoint. > > >> > KIP-412 says brokers will continue to expose the JMX API. JMX was > > >> selected > > >> > so all components could follow the brokers. In light of this, I > think we > > >> > should simply aim for semantic equivalency across the different API > for > > >> > this functionality. > > >> > > > >> > REST is convenient for Connect. We can modify the KIP to have a > /admin > > >> > endpoint, and /admin/loggers specifically for getting/setting the > log > > >> > levels of different loggers. The /admin/loggers will only impact > loggers > > >> > running in the specific worker we target requests to, and upon > > >> restarting > > >> > the worker, these loggers will reset back to their original level. > > >> > > > >> > Since configuring the rest server already has multiple config keys, > I am > > >> > inclined to bundle this /admin endpoint on to the same listener, and > > >> > provide a single new config key that enables or disables the entire > > >> /admin > > >> > endpoint. This keeps the initial approach simple and doesn't require > > >> users > > >> > to configure/discover a new endpoint. > > >> > > > >> > If this works with you all, I can update the KIP. Please let me know > > >> what > > >> > you think. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks everyone. > > >> > > > >> > Best, > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:14 AM Colin McCabe > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019, at 14:03, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > >> > > > Hi Arjun, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > From a high level, I feel like we are making light of the JMX > api > > >> > because > > >> > > > it's convenient and the broker already has it. Personally I > would > > >> take > > >> > > the > > >> > > > broker out of the picture. The JMX endpoint is not something we > were > > >> > > happy > > >> > > > with, hence KIP-412. Ultimately I think we will deprecate and > > >> remove it > > >> > > and > > >> > > > there's no point trying to standardize on a deprecated > mechanism. > > >> > > Thinking > > >> > > > just about connect, we already have an HTTP endpoint. The > default > > >> > > position > > >> > > > should be to add new APIs to it rather than introducing other > > >> > mechanisms. > > >> > > > The fewer ways you have to interact with a system, the better, > > >> right? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I think the main argument against a REST endpoint is basically > that > > >> > > > adjusting log levels is an administrative operation and connect > is > > >> > > lacking > > >> > > > an authorization framework to enforce administrative access. The > > >> same > > >> > > > argument applies to JMX, but it has the benefit that you can > specify > > >> > > > different credentials and it is easier to isolate since it is > > >> running > > >> > on > > >> > > a > > >> > > > separate port. As you suggested, I think the same benefits > could be > > >> > > > achieved by having a separate /admin endpoint which is exposed > > >> (perhaps > > >> > > > optionally) on another listener. This is a pretty standard > pattern. > > >> If > > >> > > > memory serves, dropwizard has something like this out of the > box. We > > >> > > should > > >> > > > think hard whether there are additional administrative > capabilities > > >> > that > > >> > > we > > >> > > > would ultimately need. The answer is probably yes, so unless we > > >> want to > > >> > > > double down on JMX, it might be worth thinking through the > > >> implications > > >> > > of > > >> > > > an admin endpoint now so that we're not left with odd > compatibility > > >> > > baggage > > >> > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
The new REST API for logger management looks great to me. On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Arjun Satish wrote: > > Bumping this thread. > > If there are no further comments, please add your votes here: > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg100313.html > > Thanks in advance, > Arjun > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:22 PM Arjun Satish wrote: > > > Thanks a lot, Jason! Answers inline. I'll also modify the kip to make > > these clear. > > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:01 PM Jason Gustafson wrote: > > > >> Hi Arjun, > >> > >> The updated KIP looks good. Just a couple questions: > >> > >> 1. Is the /admin endpoint on the normal listener by default? If not, is > >> there a way to have it use the same listener? > >> > > > > Uses the normal listener by default. > > > > > >> 2. Changes to logging configuration are not intended to be persistent, is > >> that right? Also, I assume changes only apply to the worker that received > >> the request? > >> > > > > Changes will not be persistent and only apply to the worker that received > > the request. > > > > > >> Thanks, > >> Jason > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:25 AM Arjun Satish > >> wrote: > >> > >> > OK. I didn't realize the plan was to deprecate and remove the JMX > >> endpoint. > >> > KIP-412 says brokers will continue to expose the JMX API. JMX was > >> selected > >> > so all components could follow the brokers. In light of this, I think we > >> > should simply aim for semantic equivalency across the different API for > >> > this functionality. > >> > > >> > REST is convenient for Connect. We can modify the KIP to have a /admin > >> > endpoint, and /admin/loggers specifically for getting/setting the log > >> > levels of different loggers. The /admin/loggers will only impact loggers > >> > running in the specific worker we target requests to, and upon > >> restarting > >> > the worker, these loggers will reset back to their original level. > >> > > >> > Since configuring the rest server already has multiple config keys, I am > >> > inclined to bundle this /admin endpoint on to the same listener, and > >> > provide a single new config key that enables or disables the entire > >> /admin > >> > endpoint. This keeps the initial approach simple and doesn't require > >> users > >> > to configure/discover a new endpoint. > >> > > >> > If this works with you all, I can update the KIP. Please let me know > >> what > >> > you think. > >> > > >> > Thanks everyone. > >> > > >> > Best, > >> > > >> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:14 AM Colin McCabe > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019, at 14:03, Jason Gustafson wrote: > >> > > > Hi Arjun, > >> > > > > >> > > > From a high level, I feel like we are making light of the JMX api > >> > because > >> > > > it's convenient and the broker already has it. Personally I would > >> take > >> > > the > >> > > > broker out of the picture. The JMX endpoint is not something we were > >> > > happy > >> > > > with, hence KIP-412. Ultimately I think we will deprecate and > >> remove it > >> > > and > >> > > > there's no point trying to standardize on a deprecated mechanism. > >> > > Thinking > >> > > > just about connect, we already have an HTTP endpoint. The default > >> > > position > >> > > > should be to add new APIs to it rather than introducing other > >> > mechanisms. > >> > > > The fewer ways you have to interact with a system, the better, > >> right? > >> > > > > >> > > > I think the main argument against a REST endpoint is basically that > >> > > > adjusting log levels is an administrative operation and connect is > >> > > lacking > >> > > > an authorization framework to enforce administrative access. The > >> same > >> > > > argument applies to JMX, but it has the benefit that you can specify > >> > > > different credentials and it is easier to isolate since it is > >> running > >> > on > >> > > a > >> > > > separate port. As you suggested, I think the same benefits could be > >> > > > achieved by having a separate /admin endpoint which is exposed > >> (perhaps > >> > > > optionally) on another listener. This is a pretty standard pattern. > >> If > >> > > > memory serves, dropwizard has something like this out of the box. We > >> > > should > >> > > > think hard whether there are additional administrative capabilities > >> > that > >> > > we > >> > > > would ultimately need. The answer is probably yes, so unless we > >> want to > >> > > > double down on JMX, it might be worth thinking through the > >> implications > >> > > of > >> > > > an admin endpoint now so that we're not left with odd compatibility > >> > > baggage > >> > > > in the future. > >> > > > >> > > Hi Jason, > >> > > > >> > > I agree... I think Connect needs a REST admin API. There will > >> probably > >> > be > >> > > a lot of other stuff that we'll want to add to it. > >> > > > >> > > best, > >> > > Colin > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > Jason > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Aug
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Bumping this thread. If there are no further comments, please add your votes here: https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg100313.html Thanks in advance, Arjun On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:22 PM Arjun Satish wrote: > Thanks a lot, Jason! Answers inline. I'll also modify the kip to make > these clear. > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:01 PM Jason Gustafson wrote: > >> Hi Arjun, >> >> The updated KIP looks good. Just a couple questions: >> >> 1. Is the /admin endpoint on the normal listener by default? If not, is >> there a way to have it use the same listener? >> > > Uses the normal listener by default. > > >> 2. Changes to logging configuration are not intended to be persistent, is >> that right? Also, I assume changes only apply to the worker that received >> the request? >> > > Changes will not be persistent and only apply to the worker that received > the request. > > >> Thanks, >> Jason >> >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:25 AM Arjun Satish >> wrote: >> >> > OK. I didn't realize the plan was to deprecate and remove the JMX >> endpoint. >> > KIP-412 says brokers will continue to expose the JMX API. JMX was >> selected >> > so all components could follow the brokers. In light of this, I think we >> > should simply aim for semantic equivalency across the different API for >> > this functionality. >> > >> > REST is convenient for Connect. We can modify the KIP to have a /admin >> > endpoint, and /admin/loggers specifically for getting/setting the log >> > levels of different loggers. The /admin/loggers will only impact loggers >> > running in the specific worker we target requests to, and upon >> restarting >> > the worker, these loggers will reset back to their original level. >> > >> > Since configuring the rest server already has multiple config keys, I am >> > inclined to bundle this /admin endpoint on to the same listener, and >> > provide a single new config key that enables or disables the entire >> /admin >> > endpoint. This keeps the initial approach simple and doesn't require >> users >> > to configure/discover a new endpoint. >> > >> > If this works with you all, I can update the KIP. Please let me know >> what >> > you think. >> > >> > Thanks everyone. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:14 AM Colin McCabe >> wrote: >> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019, at 14:03, Jason Gustafson wrote: >> > > > Hi Arjun, >> > > > >> > > > From a high level, I feel like we are making light of the JMX api >> > because >> > > > it's convenient and the broker already has it. Personally I would >> take >> > > the >> > > > broker out of the picture. The JMX endpoint is not something we were >> > > happy >> > > > with, hence KIP-412. Ultimately I think we will deprecate and >> remove it >> > > and >> > > > there's no point trying to standardize on a deprecated mechanism. >> > > Thinking >> > > > just about connect, we already have an HTTP endpoint. The default >> > > position >> > > > should be to add new APIs to it rather than introducing other >> > mechanisms. >> > > > The fewer ways you have to interact with a system, the better, >> right? >> > > > >> > > > I think the main argument against a REST endpoint is basically that >> > > > adjusting log levels is an administrative operation and connect is >> > > lacking >> > > > an authorization framework to enforce administrative access. The >> same >> > > > argument applies to JMX, but it has the benefit that you can specify >> > > > different credentials and it is easier to isolate since it is >> running >> > on >> > > a >> > > > separate port. As you suggested, I think the same benefits could be >> > > > achieved by having a separate /admin endpoint which is exposed >> (perhaps >> > > > optionally) on another listener. This is a pretty standard pattern. >> If >> > > > memory serves, dropwizard has something like this out of the box. We >> > > should >> > > > think hard whether there are additional administrative capabilities >> > that >> > > we >> > > > would ultimately need. The answer is probably yes, so unless we >> want to >> > > > double down on JMX, it might be worth thinking through the >> implications >> > > of >> > > > an admin endpoint now so that we're not left with odd compatibility >> > > baggage >> > > > in the future. >> > > >> > > Hi Jason, >> > > >> > > I agree... I think Connect needs a REST admin API. There will >> probably >> > be >> > > a lot of other stuff that we'll want to add to it. >> > > >> > > best, >> > > Colin >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > Jason >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:38 PM Arjun Satish < >> arjun.sat...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Jason, >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for your comments! >> > > > > >> > > > > I understand the usability issues with JMX that you mention. But >> it >> > was >> > > > > chosen for the following reasons: >> > > > > >> > > > > 1. Cross-cutting functionality across different components (Kafka >> > > brokers,
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Thanks a lot, Jason! Answers inline. I'll also modify the kip to make these clear. On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:01 PM Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hi Arjun, > > The updated KIP looks good. Just a couple questions: > > 1. Is the /admin endpoint on the normal listener by default? If not, is > there a way to have it use the same listener? > Uses the normal listener by default. > 2. Changes to logging configuration are not intended to be persistent, is > that right? Also, I assume changes only apply to the worker that received > the request? > Changes will not be persistent and only apply to the worker that received the request. > Thanks, > Jason > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:25 AM Arjun Satish > wrote: > > > OK. I didn't realize the plan was to deprecate and remove the JMX > endpoint. > > KIP-412 says brokers will continue to expose the JMX API. JMX was > selected > > so all components could follow the brokers. In light of this, I think we > > should simply aim for semantic equivalency across the different API for > > this functionality. > > > > REST is convenient for Connect. We can modify the KIP to have a /admin > > endpoint, and /admin/loggers specifically for getting/setting the log > > levels of different loggers. The /admin/loggers will only impact loggers > > running in the specific worker we target requests to, and upon restarting > > the worker, these loggers will reset back to their original level. > > > > Since configuring the rest server already has multiple config keys, I am > > inclined to bundle this /admin endpoint on to the same listener, and > > provide a single new config key that enables or disables the entire > /admin > > endpoint. This keeps the initial approach simple and doesn't require > users > > to configure/discover a new endpoint. > > > > If this works with you all, I can update the KIP. Please let me know what > > you think. > > > > Thanks everyone. > > > > Best, > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:14 AM Colin McCabe > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019, at 14:03, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > > > Hi Arjun, > > > > > > > > From a high level, I feel like we are making light of the JMX api > > because > > > > it's convenient and the broker already has it. Personally I would > take > > > the > > > > broker out of the picture. The JMX endpoint is not something we were > > > happy > > > > with, hence KIP-412. Ultimately I think we will deprecate and remove > it > > > and > > > > there's no point trying to standardize on a deprecated mechanism. > > > Thinking > > > > just about connect, we already have an HTTP endpoint. The default > > > position > > > > should be to add new APIs to it rather than introducing other > > mechanisms. > > > > The fewer ways you have to interact with a system, the better, right? > > > > > > > > I think the main argument against a REST endpoint is basically that > > > > adjusting log levels is an administrative operation and connect is > > > lacking > > > > an authorization framework to enforce administrative access. The same > > > > argument applies to JMX, but it has the benefit that you can specify > > > > different credentials and it is easier to isolate since it is running > > on > > > a > > > > separate port. As you suggested, I think the same benefits could be > > > > achieved by having a separate /admin endpoint which is exposed > (perhaps > > > > optionally) on another listener. This is a pretty standard pattern. > If > > > > memory serves, dropwizard has something like this out of the box. We > > > should > > > > think hard whether there are additional administrative capabilities > > that > > > we > > > > would ultimately need. The answer is probably yes, so unless we want > to > > > > double down on JMX, it might be worth thinking through the > implications > > > of > > > > an admin endpoint now so that we're not left with odd compatibility > > > baggage > > > > in the future. > > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > I agree... I think Connect needs a REST admin API. There will probably > > be > > > a lot of other stuff that we'll want to add to it. > > > > > > best, > > > Colin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:38 PM Arjun Satish > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jason, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your comments! > > > > > > > > > > I understand the usability issues with JMX that you mention. But it > > was > > > > > chosen for the following reasons: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Cross-cutting functionality across different components (Kafka > > > brokers, > > > > > Connect workers and even with Streams jobs). If we go down the REST > > > route, > > > > > then brokers don't get this feature. > > > > > 2. Adding this to existing REST servers adds the whole-or-nothing > > > problem. > > > > > It's hard to disable an endpoint if the functionality is not > desired > > or > > > > > needs to be protected from users (Connect doesn't have ACLs which > > makes > > > > > this even
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Hi Arjun, The updated KIP looks good. Just a couple questions: 1. Is the /admin endpoint on the normal listener by default? If not, is there a way to have it use the same listener? 2. Changes to logging configuration are not intended to be persistent, is that right? Also, I assume changes only apply to the worker that received the request? Thanks, Jason On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 1:25 AM Arjun Satish wrote: > OK. I didn't realize the plan was to deprecate and remove the JMX endpoint. > KIP-412 says brokers will continue to expose the JMX API. JMX was selected > so all components could follow the brokers. In light of this, I think we > should simply aim for semantic equivalency across the different API for > this functionality. > > REST is convenient for Connect. We can modify the KIP to have a /admin > endpoint, and /admin/loggers specifically for getting/setting the log > levels of different loggers. The /admin/loggers will only impact loggers > running in the specific worker we target requests to, and upon restarting > the worker, these loggers will reset back to their original level. > > Since configuring the rest server already has multiple config keys, I am > inclined to bundle this /admin endpoint on to the same listener, and > provide a single new config key that enables or disables the entire /admin > endpoint. This keeps the initial approach simple and doesn't require users > to configure/discover a new endpoint. > > If this works with you all, I can update the KIP. Please let me know what > you think. > > Thanks everyone. > > Best, > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:14 AM Colin McCabe wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019, at 14:03, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > > Hi Arjun, > > > > > > From a high level, I feel like we are making light of the JMX api > because > > > it's convenient and the broker already has it. Personally I would take > > the > > > broker out of the picture. The JMX endpoint is not something we were > > happy > > > with, hence KIP-412. Ultimately I think we will deprecate and remove it > > and > > > there's no point trying to standardize on a deprecated mechanism. > > Thinking > > > just about connect, we already have an HTTP endpoint. The default > > position > > > should be to add new APIs to it rather than introducing other > mechanisms. > > > The fewer ways you have to interact with a system, the better, right? > > > > > > I think the main argument against a REST endpoint is basically that > > > adjusting log levels is an administrative operation and connect is > > lacking > > > an authorization framework to enforce administrative access. The same > > > argument applies to JMX, but it has the benefit that you can specify > > > different credentials and it is easier to isolate since it is running > on > > a > > > separate port. As you suggested, I think the same benefits could be > > > achieved by having a separate /admin endpoint which is exposed (perhaps > > > optionally) on another listener. This is a pretty standard pattern. If > > > memory serves, dropwizard has something like this out of the box. We > > should > > > think hard whether there are additional administrative capabilities > that > > we > > > would ultimately need. The answer is probably yes, so unless we want to > > > double down on JMX, it might be worth thinking through the implications > > of > > > an admin endpoint now so that we're not left with odd compatibility > > baggage > > > in the future. > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > I agree... I think Connect needs a REST admin API. There will probably > be > > a lot of other stuff that we'll want to add to it. > > > > best, > > Colin > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:38 PM Arjun Satish > > wrote: > > > > > > > Jason, > > > > > > > > Thanks for your comments! > > > > > > > > I understand the usability issues with JMX that you mention. But it > was > > > > chosen for the following reasons: > > > > > > > > 1. Cross-cutting functionality across different components (Kafka > > brokers, > > > > Connect workers and even with Streams jobs). If we go down the REST > > route, > > > > then brokers don't get this feature. > > > > 2. Adding this to existing REST servers adds the whole-or-nothing > > problem. > > > > It's hard to disable an endpoint if the functionality is not desired > or > > > > needs to be protected from users (Connect doesn't have ACLs which > makes > > > > this even harder to manage). Adding endpoints to different listeners > > makes > > > > configuring Connect harder (and it's already a hard problem as it > is). > > A > > > > lot of the existing functionality there is driven around the > connector > > data > > > > model (connectors, plugins, their statuses and so on). Adding an > > '/admin' > > > > endpoint may be a way to go, but that has tremendous implications (we > > are > > > > effectively adding an administration endpoint similar to the admin > one > > in > > > > brokers), and probably
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
OK. I didn't realize the plan was to deprecate and remove the JMX endpoint. KIP-412 says brokers will continue to expose the JMX API. JMX was selected so all components could follow the brokers. In light of this, I think we should simply aim for semantic equivalency across the different API for this functionality. REST is convenient for Connect. We can modify the KIP to have a /admin endpoint, and /admin/loggers specifically for getting/setting the log levels of different loggers. The /admin/loggers will only impact loggers running in the specific worker we target requests to, and upon restarting the worker, these loggers will reset back to their original level. Since configuring the rest server already has multiple config keys, I am inclined to bundle this /admin endpoint on to the same listener, and provide a single new config key that enables or disables the entire /admin endpoint. This keeps the initial approach simple and doesn't require users to configure/discover a new endpoint. If this works with you all, I can update the KIP. Please let me know what you think. Thanks everyone. Best, On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:14 AM Colin McCabe wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019, at 14:03, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > Hi Arjun, > > > > From a high level, I feel like we are making light of the JMX api because > > it's convenient and the broker already has it. Personally I would take > the > > broker out of the picture. The JMX endpoint is not something we were > happy > > with, hence KIP-412. Ultimately I think we will deprecate and remove it > and > > there's no point trying to standardize on a deprecated mechanism. > Thinking > > just about connect, we already have an HTTP endpoint. The default > position > > should be to add new APIs to it rather than introducing other mechanisms. > > The fewer ways you have to interact with a system, the better, right? > > > > I think the main argument against a REST endpoint is basically that > > adjusting log levels is an administrative operation and connect is > lacking > > an authorization framework to enforce administrative access. The same > > argument applies to JMX, but it has the benefit that you can specify > > different credentials and it is easier to isolate since it is running on > a > > separate port. As you suggested, I think the same benefits could be > > achieved by having a separate /admin endpoint which is exposed (perhaps > > optionally) on another listener. This is a pretty standard pattern. If > > memory serves, dropwizard has something like this out of the box. We > should > > think hard whether there are additional administrative capabilities that > we > > would ultimately need. The answer is probably yes, so unless we want to > > double down on JMX, it might be worth thinking through the implications > of > > an admin endpoint now so that we're not left with odd compatibility > baggage > > in the future. > > Hi Jason, > > I agree... I think Connect needs a REST admin API. There will probably be > a lot of other stuff that we'll want to add to it. > > best, > Colin > > > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:38 PM Arjun Satish > wrote: > > > > > Jason, > > > > > > Thanks for your comments! > > > > > > I understand the usability issues with JMX that you mention. But it was > > > chosen for the following reasons: > > > > > > 1. Cross-cutting functionality across different components (Kafka > brokers, > > > Connect workers and even with Streams jobs). If we go down the REST > route, > > > then brokers don't get this feature. > > > 2. Adding this to existing REST servers adds the whole-or-nothing > problem. > > > It's hard to disable an endpoint if the functionality is not desired or > > > needs to be protected from users (Connect doesn't have ACLs which makes > > > this even harder to manage). Adding endpoints to different listeners > makes > > > configuring Connect harder (and it's already a hard problem as it is). > A > > > lot of the existing functionality there is driven around the connector > data > > > model (connectors, plugins, their statuses and so on). Adding an > '/admin' > > > endpoint may be a way to go, but that has tremendous implications (we > are > > > effectively adding an administration endpoint similar to the admin one > in > > > brokers), and probably requires a KIP of its own with discussions > catered > > > around just that. > > > 3. JMX is currently AK's default way to report metrics and perform > other > > > operations. Changing log levels is typically a system level/admin > > > operation, and fits better there, instead of REST APIs (which is more > user > > > facing). > > > > > > Having said that, I'm happy to consider alternatives. JMX seemed to be > the > > > lowest hanging fruit. But if there are better ideas, we can consider > them. > > > At the end of the day, when we download and run Kafka, there should be > one > > > way to achieve the same functionality among its components. > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019, at 14:03, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hi Arjun, > > From a high level, I feel like we are making light of the JMX api because > it's convenient and the broker already has it. Personally I would take the > broker out of the picture. The JMX endpoint is not something we were happy > with, hence KIP-412. Ultimately I think we will deprecate and remove it and > there's no point trying to standardize on a deprecated mechanism. Thinking > just about connect, we already have an HTTP endpoint. The default position > should be to add new APIs to it rather than introducing other mechanisms. > The fewer ways you have to interact with a system, the better, right? > > I think the main argument against a REST endpoint is basically that > adjusting log levels is an administrative operation and connect is lacking > an authorization framework to enforce administrative access. The same > argument applies to JMX, but it has the benefit that you can specify > different credentials and it is easier to isolate since it is running on a > separate port. As you suggested, I think the same benefits could be > achieved by having a separate /admin endpoint which is exposed (perhaps > optionally) on another listener. This is a pretty standard pattern. If > memory serves, dropwizard has something like this out of the box. We should > think hard whether there are additional administrative capabilities that we > would ultimately need. The answer is probably yes, so unless we want to > double down on JMX, it might be worth thinking through the implications of > an admin endpoint now so that we're not left with odd compatibility baggage > in the future. Hi Jason, I agree... I think Connect needs a REST admin API. There will probably be a lot of other stuff that we'll want to add to it. best, Colin > > Thanks, > Jason > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:38 PM Arjun Satish wrote: > > > Jason, > > > > Thanks for your comments! > > > > I understand the usability issues with JMX that you mention. But it was > > chosen for the following reasons: > > > > 1. Cross-cutting functionality across different components (Kafka brokers, > > Connect workers and even with Streams jobs). If we go down the REST route, > > then brokers don't get this feature. > > 2. Adding this to existing REST servers adds the whole-or-nothing problem. > > It's hard to disable an endpoint if the functionality is not desired or > > needs to be protected from users (Connect doesn't have ACLs which makes > > this even harder to manage). Adding endpoints to different listeners makes > > configuring Connect harder (and it's already a hard problem as it is). A > > lot of the existing functionality there is driven around the connector data > > model (connectors, plugins, their statuses and so on). Adding an '/admin' > > endpoint may be a way to go, but that has tremendous implications (we are > > effectively adding an administration endpoint similar to the admin one in > > brokers), and probably requires a KIP of its own with discussions catered > > around just that. > > 3. JMX is currently AK's default way to report metrics and perform other > > operations. Changing log levels is typically a system level/admin > > operation, and fits better there, instead of REST APIs (which is more user > > facing). > > > > Having said that, I'm happy to consider alternatives. JMX seemed to be the > > lowest hanging fruit. But if there are better ideas, we can consider them. > > At the end of the day, when we download and run Kafka, there should be one > > way to achieve the same functionality among its components. > > > > Finally, I hope I didn't convey that we are reverting/changing the changes > > made in KIP-412. The proposed changes would be an addition to it. It will > > give brokers multiple ways of changing log levels. and there is still a > > consistent way of achieving cross component goals of the KIP. > > > > Best, > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:12 PM Jason Gustafson > > wrote: > > > > > Let me elaborate a little bit. We made the decision early on for Connect > > to > > > use HTTP instead of Kafka's custom RPC protocol. In exchange for losing > > > some hygienic consistency with Kafka, we took easier integration with > > > management tools. The scope of the connect REST APIs is really managing > > the > > > connect cluster. It has endpoints for creating connectors, changing > > > configs, seeing their health, etc. Doesn't debugging fit in with that? I > > am > > > not sure I see why we would treat this as an exceptional case. > > > > > > I personally see JMX as a necessary evil in Kafka because most metrics > > > agents have native support. But it is particularly painful when it comes > > to > > > use as an RPC mechanism. This was the central motivation behind KIP-412, > > > which makes it very odd to see a new proposal which suggests > > standardizing > > > on JMX for log level adjustment. I actually see this as something we'd > > want > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Hi Arjun, >From a high level, I feel like we are making light of the JMX api because it's convenient and the broker already has it. Personally I would take the broker out of the picture. The JMX endpoint is not something we were happy with, hence KIP-412. Ultimately I think we will deprecate and remove it and there's no point trying to standardize on a deprecated mechanism. Thinking just about connect, we already have an HTTP endpoint. The default position should be to add new APIs to it rather than introducing other mechanisms. The fewer ways you have to interact with a system, the better, right? I think the main argument against a REST endpoint is basically that adjusting log levels is an administrative operation and connect is lacking an authorization framework to enforce administrative access. The same argument applies to JMX, but it has the benefit that you can specify different credentials and it is easier to isolate since it is running on a separate port. As you suggested, I think the same benefits could be achieved by having a separate /admin endpoint which is exposed (perhaps optionally) on another listener. This is a pretty standard pattern. If memory serves, dropwizard has something like this out of the box. We should think hard whether there are additional administrative capabilities that we would ultimately need. The answer is probably yes, so unless we want to double down on JMX, it might be worth thinking through the implications of an admin endpoint now so that we're not left with odd compatibility baggage in the future. Thanks, Jason On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:38 PM Arjun Satish wrote: > Jason, > > Thanks for your comments! > > I understand the usability issues with JMX that you mention. But it was > chosen for the following reasons: > > 1. Cross-cutting functionality across different components (Kafka brokers, > Connect workers and even with Streams jobs). If we go down the REST route, > then brokers don't get this feature. > 2. Adding this to existing REST servers adds the whole-or-nothing problem. > It's hard to disable an endpoint if the functionality is not desired or > needs to be protected from users (Connect doesn't have ACLs which makes > this even harder to manage). Adding endpoints to different listeners makes > configuring Connect harder (and it's already a hard problem as it is). A > lot of the existing functionality there is driven around the connector data > model (connectors, plugins, their statuses and so on). Adding an '/admin' > endpoint may be a way to go, but that has tremendous implications (we are > effectively adding an administration endpoint similar to the admin one in > brokers), and probably requires a KIP of its own with discussions catered > around just that. > 3. JMX is currently AK's default way to report metrics and perform other > operations. Changing log levels is typically a system level/admin > operation, and fits better there, instead of REST APIs (which is more user > facing). > > Having said that, I'm happy to consider alternatives. JMX seemed to be the > lowest hanging fruit. But if there are better ideas, we can consider them. > At the end of the day, when we download and run Kafka, there should be one > way to achieve the same functionality among its components. > > Finally, I hope I didn't convey that we are reverting/changing the changes > made in KIP-412. The proposed changes would be an addition to it. It will > give brokers multiple ways of changing log levels. and there is still a > consistent way of achieving cross component goals of the KIP. > > Best, > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:12 PM Jason Gustafson > wrote: > > > Let me elaborate a little bit. We made the decision early on for Connect > to > > use HTTP instead of Kafka's custom RPC protocol. In exchange for losing > > some hygienic consistency with Kafka, we took easier integration with > > management tools. The scope of the connect REST APIs is really managing > the > > connect cluster. It has endpoints for creating connectors, changing > > configs, seeing their health, etc. Doesn't debugging fit in with that? I > am > > not sure I see why we would treat this as an exceptional case. > > > > I personally see JMX as a necessary evil in Kafka because most metrics > > agents have native support. But it is particularly painful when it comes > to > > use as an RPC mechanism. This was the central motivation behind KIP-412, > > which makes it very odd to see a new proposal which suggests > standardizing > > on JMX for log level adjustment. I actually see this as something we'd > want > > to eventually turn off in Kafka. Now that we have a proper API with > support > > in the AdminClient, we can deprecate and eventually remove the JMX > > endpoint. > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:49 AM Jason Gustafson > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Arjun, > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. Do we really need a JMX-based API? Is there > literally > > > anyone in the world that
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Jason, Thanks for your comments! I understand the usability issues with JMX that you mention. But it was chosen for the following reasons: 1. Cross-cutting functionality across different components (Kafka brokers, Connect workers and even with Streams jobs). If we go down the REST route, then brokers don't get this feature. 2. Adding this to existing REST servers adds the whole-or-nothing problem. It's hard to disable an endpoint if the functionality is not desired or needs to be protected from users (Connect doesn't have ACLs which makes this even harder to manage). Adding endpoints to different listeners makes configuring Connect harder (and it's already a hard problem as it is). A lot of the existing functionality there is driven around the connector data model (connectors, plugins, their statuses and so on). Adding an '/admin' endpoint may be a way to go, but that has tremendous implications (we are effectively adding an administration endpoint similar to the admin one in brokers), and probably requires a KIP of its own with discussions catered around just that. 3. JMX is currently AK's default way to report metrics and perform other operations. Changing log levels is typically a system level/admin operation, and fits better there, instead of REST APIs (which is more user facing). Having said that, I'm happy to consider alternatives. JMX seemed to be the lowest hanging fruit. But if there are better ideas, we can consider them. At the end of the day, when we download and run Kafka, there should be one way to achieve the same functionality among its components. Finally, I hope I didn't convey that we are reverting/changing the changes made in KIP-412. The proposed changes would be an addition to it. It will give brokers multiple ways of changing log levels. and there is still a consistent way of achieving cross component goals of the KIP. Best, On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:12 PM Jason Gustafson wrote: > Let me elaborate a little bit. We made the decision early on for Connect to > use HTTP instead of Kafka's custom RPC protocol. In exchange for losing > some hygienic consistency with Kafka, we took easier integration with > management tools. The scope of the connect REST APIs is really managing the > connect cluster. It has endpoints for creating connectors, changing > configs, seeing their health, etc. Doesn't debugging fit in with that? I am > not sure I see why we would treat this as an exceptional case. > > I personally see JMX as a necessary evil in Kafka because most metrics > agents have native support. But it is particularly painful when it comes to > use as an RPC mechanism. This was the central motivation behind KIP-412, > which makes it very odd to see a new proposal which suggests standardizing > on JMX for log level adjustment. I actually see this as something we'd want > to eventually turn off in Kafka. Now that we have a proper API with support > in the AdminClient, we can deprecate and eventually remove the JMX > endpoint. > > Thanks, > Jason > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:49 AM Jason Gustafson > wrote: > > > Hi Arjun, > > > > Thanks for the KIP. Do we really need a JMX-based API? Is there literally > > anyone in the world that wants to use JMX if they don't have to? I > thought > > one of the major motivations of KIP-412 was how much of a pain JMX is. > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 5:28 PM Arjun Satish > > wrote: > > > >> Thanks, Konstantine. > >> > >> Updated the KIP with the restrictions around log4j and added references > to > >> similar KIPs. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 3:20 PM Konstantine Karantasis < > >> konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks Arjun, the example is useful! > >> > > >> > My point when I mentioned the restrictions around log4j is that this > is > >> > information is significant and IMO needs to be included in the KIP. > >> > > >> > Speaking of its relevance to KIP-412, I think a reference would be > nice > >> > too. > >> > > >> > Konstantine > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM Arjun Satish > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hey Konstantine, > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for the feedback. > >> > > > >> > > re: the use of log4j, yes, the proposed changes will only work if > >> log4j > >> > is > >> > > available in runtime. We will not add the mBean if log4j is not > >> available > >> > > in classpath. If we change from log4j 1 to 2, that would involve > >> another > >> > > KIP, and it would need to update the changes proposed in this KIP > and > >> > > others (KIP-412, for instance). > >> > > > >> > > re: use of Object types, I've changed it from Boolean to the > primitive > >> > type > >> > > for setLogLevel. We are changing the signature of the old method > this > >> > way, > >> > > but since it never returned null, this should be fine. > >> > > > >> > > re: example usage, I've added some screenshot on how this feature > >> would > >> > be > >> > > used with jconsole. > >> > > > >>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Let me elaborate a little bit. We made the decision early on for Connect to use HTTP instead of Kafka's custom RPC protocol. In exchange for losing some hygienic consistency with Kafka, we took easier integration with management tools. The scope of the connect REST APIs is really managing the connect cluster. It has endpoints for creating connectors, changing configs, seeing their health, etc. Doesn't debugging fit in with that? I am not sure I see why we would treat this as an exceptional case. I personally see JMX as a necessary evil in Kafka because most metrics agents have native support. But it is particularly painful when it comes to use as an RPC mechanism. This was the central motivation behind KIP-412, which makes it very odd to see a new proposal which suggests standardizing on JMX for log level adjustment. I actually see this as something we'd want to eventually turn off in Kafka. Now that we have a proper API with support in the AdminClient, we can deprecate and eventually remove the JMX endpoint. Thanks, Jason On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:49 AM Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hi Arjun, > > Thanks for the KIP. Do we really need a JMX-based API? Is there literally > anyone in the world that wants to use JMX if they don't have to? I thought > one of the major motivations of KIP-412 was how much of a pain JMX is. > > Thanks, > Jason > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 5:28 PM Arjun Satish > wrote: > >> Thanks, Konstantine. >> >> Updated the KIP with the restrictions around log4j and added references to >> similar KIPs. >> >> Best, >> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 3:20 PM Konstantine Karantasis < >> konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: >> >> > Thanks Arjun, the example is useful! >> > >> > My point when I mentioned the restrictions around log4j is that this is >> > information is significant and IMO needs to be included in the KIP. >> > >> > Speaking of its relevance to KIP-412, I think a reference would be nice >> > too. >> > >> > Konstantine >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM Arjun Satish >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hey Konstantine, >> > > >> > > Thanks for the feedback. >> > > >> > > re: the use of log4j, yes, the proposed changes will only work if >> log4j >> > is >> > > available in runtime. We will not add the mBean if log4j is not >> available >> > > in classpath. If we change from log4j 1 to 2, that would involve >> another >> > > KIP, and it would need to update the changes proposed in this KIP and >> > > others (KIP-412, for instance). >> > > >> > > re: use of Object types, I've changed it from Boolean to the primitive >> > type >> > > for setLogLevel. We are changing the signature of the old method this >> > way, >> > > but since it never returned null, this should be fine. >> > > >> > > re: example usage, I've added some screenshot on how this feature >> would >> > be >> > > used with jconsole. >> > > >> > > Hope this works! >> > > >> > > Thanks very much, >> > > Arjun >> > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:42 AM Konstantine Karantasis < >> > > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: >> > > >> > > > And one thing I forgot is also related to Chris's comment above. I >> > agree >> > > > that an example on how a user is expected to set the log level (for >> > > > instance to DEBUG) would be nice, even if it's showing only one out >> of >> > > the >> > > > many possible ways to achieve that. >> > > > >> > > > - Konstantine >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:38 PM Konstantine Karantasis < >> > > > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks Arjun for tackling the need to support this very useful >> > feature. >> > > > > >> > > > > One thing I noticed while reading the KIP is that I would have >> loved >> > to >> > > > > see more info regarding how this proposal depends on the >> underlying >> > > > logging >> > > > > APIs and implementations. For instance, my understanding is that >> > slf4j >> > > > can >> > > > > not be leveraged and that the logging framework needs to be >> pegged to >> > > > log4j >> > > > > explicitly (or another logging implementation). Correct me if I'm >> > > wrong, >> > > > > but if such a dependency is introduced I believe it's worth >> > mentioning. >> > > > > >> > > > > Additionally, if the above is correct, there are differences in >> > log4j's >> > > > > APIs between version 1 and version 2. In version 2, >> Logger#setLevel >> > > > method >> > > > > has been removed from the Logger interface and in order to set the >> > log >> > > > > level programmatically the Configurator class needs to used, >> which as >> > > > > stated in the FAQ ( >> > > > > >> > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/faq.html#reconfig_level_from_code >> > > ) >> > > > > it's not part of log4j2's public API. Is this a concern? I believe >> > that >> > > > > even if these are implementation specific details for the wrappers >> > > > > introduced by this KIP (which to a certain extent they are), a >> > mention >> > > in >> > > > > the KIP text and a few references
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Hi Arjun, Thanks for the KIP. Do we really need a JMX-based API? Is there literally anyone in the world that wants to use JMX if they don't have to? I thought one of the major motivations of KIP-412 was how much of a pain JMX is. Thanks, Jason On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 5:28 PM Arjun Satish wrote: > Thanks, Konstantine. > > Updated the KIP with the restrictions around log4j and added references to > similar KIPs. > > Best, > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 3:20 PM Konstantine Karantasis < > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Thanks Arjun, the example is useful! > > > > My point when I mentioned the restrictions around log4j is that this is > > information is significant and IMO needs to be included in the KIP. > > > > Speaking of its relevance to KIP-412, I think a reference would be nice > > too. > > > > Konstantine > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM Arjun Satish > > wrote: > > > > > Hey Konstantine, > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > > > re: the use of log4j, yes, the proposed changes will only work if log4j > > is > > > available in runtime. We will not add the mBean if log4j is not > available > > > in classpath. If we change from log4j 1 to 2, that would involve > another > > > KIP, and it would need to update the changes proposed in this KIP and > > > others (KIP-412, for instance). > > > > > > re: use of Object types, I've changed it from Boolean to the primitive > > type > > > for setLogLevel. We are changing the signature of the old method this > > way, > > > but since it never returned null, this should be fine. > > > > > > re: example usage, I've added some screenshot on how this feature would > > be > > > used with jconsole. > > > > > > Hope this works! > > > > > > Thanks very much, > > > Arjun > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:42 AM Konstantine Karantasis < > > > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > And one thing I forgot is also related to Chris's comment above. I > > agree > > > > that an example on how a user is expected to set the log level (for > > > > instance to DEBUG) would be nice, even if it's showing only one out > of > > > the > > > > many possible ways to achieve that. > > > > > > > > - Konstantine > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:38 PM Konstantine Karantasis < > > > > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Arjun for tackling the need to support this very useful > > feature. > > > > > > > > > > One thing I noticed while reading the KIP is that I would have > loved > > to > > > > > see more info regarding how this proposal depends on the underlying > > > > logging > > > > > APIs and implementations. For instance, my understanding is that > > slf4j > > > > can > > > > > not be leveraged and that the logging framework needs to be pegged > to > > > > log4j > > > > > explicitly (or another logging implementation). Correct me if I'm > > > wrong, > > > > > but if such a dependency is introduced I believe it's worth > > mentioning. > > > > > > > > > > Additionally, if the above is correct, there are differences in > > log4j's > > > > > APIs between version 1 and version 2. In version 2, Logger#setLevel > > > > method > > > > > has been removed from the Logger interface and in order to set the > > log > > > > > level programmatically the Configurator class needs to used, which > as > > > > > stated in the FAQ ( > > > > > > > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/faq.html#reconfig_level_from_code > > > ) > > > > > it's not part of log4j2's public API. Is this a concern? I believe > > that > > > > > even if these are implementation specific details for the wrappers > > > > > introduced by this KIP (which to a certain extent they are), a > > mention > > > in > > > > > the KIP text and a few references would be useful to understand the > > > > changes > > > > > and the dependencies introduced by this proposal. > > > > > > > > > > And a few minor comments: > > > > > - Is there any specific reason that object types were preferred in > > the > > > > > proposed interface compared to primitive types? My understanding is > > > that > > > > > `null` is not expected as a return value. > > > > > - Related to the above, I think it'd be nice for the javadoc to > > mention > > > > > when a parameter is not expected to be `null` with an appropriate > > > comment > > > > > (e.g. foo bar etc; may not be null) > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Konstantine > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 9:34 AM Cyrus Vafadari > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> This looks like a useful feature, the strategy makes sense, and > the > > > KIP > > > > is > > > > >> thorough and nicely written. Thanks! > > > > >> > > > > >> Cyrus > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 12:40 PM Chris Egerton > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks Arjun! Looks good to me. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:33 PM Arjun Satish < > > > arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Thanks for the feedback,
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Thanks, Konstantine. Updated the KIP with the restrictions around log4j and added references to similar KIPs. Best, On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 3:20 PM Konstantine Karantasis < konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > Thanks Arjun, the example is useful! > > My point when I mentioned the restrictions around log4j is that this is > information is significant and IMO needs to be included in the KIP. > > Speaking of its relevance to KIP-412, I think a reference would be nice > too. > > Konstantine > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM Arjun Satish > wrote: > > > Hey Konstantine, > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > re: the use of log4j, yes, the proposed changes will only work if log4j > is > > available in runtime. We will not add the mBean if log4j is not available > > in classpath. If we change from log4j 1 to 2, that would involve another > > KIP, and it would need to update the changes proposed in this KIP and > > others (KIP-412, for instance). > > > > re: use of Object types, I've changed it from Boolean to the primitive > type > > for setLogLevel. We are changing the signature of the old method this > way, > > but since it never returned null, this should be fine. > > > > re: example usage, I've added some screenshot on how this feature would > be > > used with jconsole. > > > > Hope this works! > > > > Thanks very much, > > Arjun > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:42 AM Konstantine Karantasis < > > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > And one thing I forgot is also related to Chris's comment above. I > agree > > > that an example on how a user is expected to set the log level (for > > > instance to DEBUG) would be nice, even if it's showing only one out of > > the > > > many possible ways to achieve that. > > > > > > - Konstantine > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:38 PM Konstantine Karantasis < > > > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Arjun for tackling the need to support this very useful > feature. > > > > > > > > One thing I noticed while reading the KIP is that I would have loved > to > > > > see more info regarding how this proposal depends on the underlying > > > logging > > > > APIs and implementations. For instance, my understanding is that > slf4j > > > can > > > > not be leveraged and that the logging framework needs to be pegged to > > > log4j > > > > explicitly (or another logging implementation). Correct me if I'm > > wrong, > > > > but if such a dependency is introduced I believe it's worth > mentioning. > > > > > > > > Additionally, if the above is correct, there are differences in > log4j's > > > > APIs between version 1 and version 2. In version 2, Logger#setLevel > > > method > > > > has been removed from the Logger interface and in order to set the > log > > > > level programmatically the Configurator class needs to used, which as > > > > stated in the FAQ ( > > > > > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/faq.html#reconfig_level_from_code > > ) > > > > it's not part of log4j2's public API. Is this a concern? I believe > that > > > > even if these are implementation specific details for the wrappers > > > > introduced by this KIP (which to a certain extent they are), a > mention > > in > > > > the KIP text and a few references would be useful to understand the > > > changes > > > > and the dependencies introduced by this proposal. > > > > > > > > And a few minor comments: > > > > - Is there any specific reason that object types were preferred in > the > > > > proposed interface compared to primitive types? My understanding is > > that > > > > `null` is not expected as a return value. > > > > - Related to the above, I think it'd be nice for the javadoc to > mention > > > > when a parameter is not expected to be `null` with an appropriate > > comment > > > > (e.g. foo bar etc; may not be null) > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Konstantine > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 9:34 AM Cyrus Vafadari > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> This looks like a useful feature, the strategy makes sense, and the > > KIP > > > is > > > >> thorough and nicely written. Thanks! > > > >> > > > >> Cyrus > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 12:40 PM Chris Egerton > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks Arjun! Looks good to me. > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:33 PM Arjun Satish < > > arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks for the feedback, Chris! > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Yes, the example is pretty much how Connect will use the new > > > feature. > > > >> > > Tweaked the section to make this more clear. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Best, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:52 AM Chris Egerton < > > chr...@confluent.io > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Arjun, > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > This looks great. The changes to public interface are pretty > > small > > > >> and > > > >> > > > moving the Log4jController class into the clients package > seems > > > like > > > >> > the > > > >>
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Thanks Arjun, the example is useful! My point when I mentioned the restrictions around log4j is that this is information is significant and IMO needs to be included in the KIP. Speaking of its relevance to KIP-412, I think a reference would be nice too. Konstantine On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM Arjun Satish wrote: > Hey Konstantine, > > Thanks for the feedback. > > re: the use of log4j, yes, the proposed changes will only work if log4j is > available in runtime. We will not add the mBean if log4j is not available > in classpath. If we change from log4j 1 to 2, that would involve another > KIP, and it would need to update the changes proposed in this KIP and > others (KIP-412, for instance). > > re: use of Object types, I've changed it from Boolean to the primitive type > for setLogLevel. We are changing the signature of the old method this way, > but since it never returned null, this should be fine. > > re: example usage, I've added some screenshot on how this feature would be > used with jconsole. > > Hope this works! > > Thanks very much, > Arjun > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:42 AM Konstantine Karantasis < > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > And one thing I forgot is also related to Chris's comment above. I agree > > that an example on how a user is expected to set the log level (for > > instance to DEBUG) would be nice, even if it's showing only one out of > the > > many possible ways to achieve that. > > > > - Konstantine > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:38 PM Konstantine Karantasis < > > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Arjun for tackling the need to support this very useful feature. > > > > > > One thing I noticed while reading the KIP is that I would have loved to > > > see more info regarding how this proposal depends on the underlying > > logging > > > APIs and implementations. For instance, my understanding is that slf4j > > can > > > not be leveraged and that the logging framework needs to be pegged to > > log4j > > > explicitly (or another logging implementation). Correct me if I'm > wrong, > > > but if such a dependency is introduced I believe it's worth mentioning. > > > > > > Additionally, if the above is correct, there are differences in log4j's > > > APIs between version 1 and version 2. In version 2, Logger#setLevel > > method > > > has been removed from the Logger interface and in order to set the log > > > level programmatically the Configurator class needs to used, which as > > > stated in the FAQ ( > > > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/faq.html#reconfig_level_from_code > ) > > > it's not part of log4j2's public API. Is this a concern? I believe that > > > even if these are implementation specific details for the wrappers > > > introduced by this KIP (which to a certain extent they are), a mention > in > > > the KIP text and a few references would be useful to understand the > > changes > > > and the dependencies introduced by this proposal. > > > > > > And a few minor comments: > > > - Is there any specific reason that object types were preferred in the > > > proposed interface compared to primitive types? My understanding is > that > > > `null` is not expected as a return value. > > > - Related to the above, I think it'd be nice for the javadoc to mention > > > when a parameter is not expected to be `null` with an appropriate > comment > > > (e.g. foo bar etc; may not be null) > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Konstantine > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 9:34 AM Cyrus Vafadari > > wrote: > > > > > >> This looks like a useful feature, the strategy makes sense, and the > KIP > > is > > >> thorough and nicely written. Thanks! > > >> > > >> Cyrus > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 12:40 PM Chris Egerton > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Thanks Arjun! Looks good to me. > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:33 PM Arjun Satish < > arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for the feedback, Chris! > > >> > > > > >> > > Yes, the example is pretty much how Connect will use the new > > feature. > > >> > > Tweaked the section to make this more clear. > > >> > > > > >> > > Best, > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:52 AM Chris Egerton < > chr...@confluent.io > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi Arjun, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > This looks great. The changes to public interface are pretty > small > > >> and > > >> > > > moving the Log4jController class into the clients package seems > > like > > >> > the > > >> > > > right way to go. One question I have--it looks like the purpose > of > > >> this > > >> > > KIP > > >> > > > is to enable dynamic setting of log levels in the Connect > > framework, > > >> > but > > >> > > > it's not clear how the Connect framework will use that new > > utility. > > >> Is > > >> > > the > > >> > > > "Example Usage" section (which involves invoking the utility > with > > a > > >> > > > namespace of "kafka.connect") actually meant to be part of the > > >> proposed > > >> > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Hey Konstantine, Thanks for the feedback. re: the use of log4j, yes, the proposed changes will only work if log4j is available in runtime. We will not add the mBean if log4j is not available in classpath. If we change from log4j 1 to 2, that would involve another KIP, and it would need to update the changes proposed in this KIP and others (KIP-412, for instance). re: use of Object types, I've changed it from Boolean to the primitive type for setLogLevel. We are changing the signature of the old method this way, but since it never returned null, this should be fine. re: example usage, I've added some screenshot on how this feature would be used with jconsole. Hope this works! Thanks very much, Arjun On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:42 AM Konstantine Karantasis < konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > And one thing I forgot is also related to Chris's comment above. I agree > that an example on how a user is expected to set the log level (for > instance to DEBUG) would be nice, even if it's showing only one out of the > many possible ways to achieve that. > > - Konstantine > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:38 PM Konstantine Karantasis < > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > Thanks Arjun for tackling the need to support this very useful feature. > > > > One thing I noticed while reading the KIP is that I would have loved to > > see more info regarding how this proposal depends on the underlying > logging > > APIs and implementations. For instance, my understanding is that slf4j > can > > not be leveraged and that the logging framework needs to be pegged to > log4j > > explicitly (or another logging implementation). Correct me if I'm wrong, > > but if such a dependency is introduced I believe it's worth mentioning. > > > > Additionally, if the above is correct, there are differences in log4j's > > APIs between version 1 and version 2. In version 2, Logger#setLevel > method > > has been removed from the Logger interface and in order to set the log > > level programmatically the Configurator class needs to used, which as > > stated in the FAQ ( > > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/faq.html#reconfig_level_from_code) > > it's not part of log4j2's public API. Is this a concern? I believe that > > even if these are implementation specific details for the wrappers > > introduced by this KIP (which to a certain extent they are), a mention in > > the KIP text and a few references would be useful to understand the > changes > > and the dependencies introduced by this proposal. > > > > And a few minor comments: > > - Is there any specific reason that object types were preferred in the > > proposed interface compared to primitive types? My understanding is that > > `null` is not expected as a return value. > > - Related to the above, I think it'd be nice for the javadoc to mention > > when a parameter is not expected to be `null` with an appropriate comment > > (e.g. foo bar etc; may not be null) > > > > Cheers, > > Konstantine > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 9:34 AM Cyrus Vafadari > wrote: > > > >> This looks like a useful feature, the strategy makes sense, and the KIP > is > >> thorough and nicely written. Thanks! > >> > >> Cyrus > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 12:40 PM Chris Egerton > wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks Arjun! Looks good to me. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:33 PM Arjun Satish > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Thanks for the feedback, Chris! > >> > > > >> > > Yes, the example is pretty much how Connect will use the new > feature. > >> > > Tweaked the section to make this more clear. > >> > > > >> > > Best, > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:52 AM Chris Egerton > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hi Arjun, > >> > > > > >> > > > This looks great. The changes to public interface are pretty small > >> and > >> > > > moving the Log4jController class into the clients package seems > like > >> > the > >> > > > right way to go. One question I have--it looks like the purpose of > >> this > >> > > KIP > >> > > > is to enable dynamic setting of log levels in the Connect > framework, > >> > but > >> > > > it's not clear how the Connect framework will use that new > utility. > >> Is > >> > > the > >> > > > "Example Usage" section (which involves invoking the utility with > a > >> > > > namespace of "kafka.connect") actually meant to be part of the > >> proposed > >> > > > changes to public interface? > >> > > > > >> > > > Cheers, > >> > > > > >> > > > Chris > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:03 PM Arjun Satish < > >> arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi everyone. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I'd like to propose the following KIP to implement changing log > >> > levels > >> > > on > >> > > > > the fly in Connect workers: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-495%3A+Dynamically+Adjust+Log+Levels+in+Connect > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Would like to hear your thoughts on this. >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
And one thing I forgot is also related to Chris's comment above. I agree that an example on how a user is expected to set the log level (for instance to DEBUG) would be nice, even if it's showing only one out of the many possible ways to achieve that. - Konstantine On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:38 PM Konstantine Karantasis < konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > Thanks Arjun for tackling the need to support this very useful feature. > > One thing I noticed while reading the KIP is that I would have loved to > see more info regarding how this proposal depends on the underlying logging > APIs and implementations. For instance, my understanding is that slf4j can > not be leveraged and that the logging framework needs to be pegged to log4j > explicitly (or another logging implementation). Correct me if I'm wrong, > but if such a dependency is introduced I believe it's worth mentioning. > > Additionally, if the above is correct, there are differences in log4j's > APIs between version 1 and version 2. In version 2, Logger#setLevel method > has been removed from the Logger interface and in order to set the log > level programmatically the Configurator class needs to used, which as > stated in the FAQ ( > https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/faq.html#reconfig_level_from_code) > it's not part of log4j2's public API. Is this a concern? I believe that > even if these are implementation specific details for the wrappers > introduced by this KIP (which to a certain extent they are), a mention in > the KIP text and a few references would be useful to understand the changes > and the dependencies introduced by this proposal. > > And a few minor comments: > - Is there any specific reason that object types were preferred in the > proposed interface compared to primitive types? My understanding is that > `null` is not expected as a return value. > - Related to the above, I think it'd be nice for the javadoc to mention > when a parameter is not expected to be `null` with an appropriate comment > (e.g. foo bar etc; may not be null) > > Cheers, > Konstantine > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 9:34 AM Cyrus Vafadari wrote: > >> This looks like a useful feature, the strategy makes sense, and the KIP is >> thorough and nicely written. Thanks! >> >> Cyrus >> >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 12:40 PM Chris Egerton wrote: >> >> > Thanks Arjun! Looks good to me. >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:33 PM Arjun Satish >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Thanks for the feedback, Chris! >> > > >> > > Yes, the example is pretty much how Connect will use the new feature. >> > > Tweaked the section to make this more clear. >> > > >> > > Best, >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:52 AM Chris Egerton >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi Arjun, >> > > > >> > > > This looks great. The changes to public interface are pretty small >> and >> > > > moving the Log4jController class into the clients package seems like >> > the >> > > > right way to go. One question I have--it looks like the purpose of >> this >> > > KIP >> > > > is to enable dynamic setting of log levels in the Connect framework, >> > but >> > > > it's not clear how the Connect framework will use that new utility. >> Is >> > > the >> > > > "Example Usage" section (which involves invoking the utility with a >> > > > namespace of "kafka.connect") actually meant to be part of the >> proposed >> > > > changes to public interface? >> > > > >> > > > Cheers, >> > > > >> > > > Chris >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:03 PM Arjun Satish < >> arjun.sat...@gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi everyone. >> > > > > >> > > > > I'd like to propose the following KIP to implement changing log >> > levels >> > > on >> > > > > the fly in Connect workers: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-495%3A+Dynamically+Adjust+Log+Levels+in+Connect >> > > > > >> > > > > Would like to hear your thoughts on this. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks very much, >> > > > > Arjun >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Thanks Arjun for tackling the need to support this very useful feature. One thing I noticed while reading the KIP is that I would have loved to see more info regarding how this proposal depends on the underlying logging APIs and implementations. For instance, my understanding is that slf4j can not be leveraged and that the logging framework needs to be pegged to log4j explicitly (or another logging implementation). Correct me if I'm wrong, but if such a dependency is introduced I believe it's worth mentioning. Additionally, if the above is correct, there are differences in log4j's APIs between version 1 and version 2. In version 2, Logger#setLevel method has been removed from the Logger interface and in order to set the log level programmatically the Configurator class needs to used, which as stated in the FAQ ( https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/faq.html#reconfig_level_from_code) it's not part of log4j2's public API. Is this a concern? I believe that even if these are implementation specific details for the wrappers introduced by this KIP (which to a certain extent they are), a mention in the KIP text and a few references would be useful to understand the changes and the dependencies introduced by this proposal. And a few minor comments: - Is there any specific reason that object types were preferred in the proposed interface compared to primitive types? My understanding is that `null` is not expected as a return value. - Related to the above, I think it'd be nice for the javadoc to mention when a parameter is not expected to be `null` with an appropriate comment (e.g. foo bar etc; may not be null) Cheers, Konstantine On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 9:34 AM Cyrus Vafadari wrote: > This looks like a useful feature, the strategy makes sense, and the KIP is > thorough and nicely written. Thanks! > > Cyrus > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 12:40 PM Chris Egerton wrote: > > > Thanks Arjun! Looks good to me. > > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:33 PM Arjun Satish > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the feedback, Chris! > > > > > > Yes, the example is pretty much how Connect will use the new feature. > > > Tweaked the section to make this more clear. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:52 AM Chris Egerton > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Arjun, > > > > > > > > This looks great. The changes to public interface are pretty small > and > > > > moving the Log4jController class into the clients package seems like > > the > > > > right way to go. One question I have--it looks like the purpose of > this > > > KIP > > > > is to enable dynamic setting of log levels in the Connect framework, > > but > > > > it's not clear how the Connect framework will use that new utility. > Is > > > the > > > > "Example Usage" section (which involves invoking the utility with a > > > > namespace of "kafka.connect") actually meant to be part of the > proposed > > > > changes to public interface? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:03 PM Arjun Satish < > arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone. > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose the following KIP to implement changing log > > levels > > > on > > > > > the fly in Connect workers: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-495%3A+Dynamically+Adjust+Log+Levels+in+Connect > > > > > > > > > > Would like to hear your thoughts on this. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks very much, > > > > > Arjun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
This looks like a useful feature, the strategy makes sense, and the KIP is thorough and nicely written. Thanks! Cyrus On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 12:40 PM Chris Egerton wrote: > Thanks Arjun! Looks good to me. > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:33 PM Arjun Satish > wrote: > > > Thanks for the feedback, Chris! > > > > Yes, the example is pretty much how Connect will use the new feature. > > Tweaked the section to make this more clear. > > > > Best, > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:52 AM Chris Egerton > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Arjun, > > > > > > This looks great. The changes to public interface are pretty small and > > > moving the Log4jController class into the clients package seems like > the > > > right way to go. One question I have--it looks like the purpose of this > > KIP > > > is to enable dynamic setting of log levels in the Connect framework, > but > > > it's not clear how the Connect framework will use that new utility. Is > > the > > > "Example Usage" section (which involves invoking the utility with a > > > namespace of "kafka.connect") actually meant to be part of the proposed > > > changes to public interface? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:03 PM Arjun Satish > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi everyone. > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose the following KIP to implement changing log > levels > > on > > > > the fly in Connect workers: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-495%3A+Dynamically+Adjust+Log+Levels+in+Connect > > > > > > > > Would like to hear your thoughts on this. > > > > > > > > Thanks very much, > > > > Arjun > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Thanks Arjun! Looks good to me. On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:33 PM Arjun Satish wrote: > Thanks for the feedback, Chris! > > Yes, the example is pretty much how Connect will use the new feature. > Tweaked the section to make this more clear. > > Best, > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:52 AM Chris Egerton > wrote: > > > Hi Arjun, > > > > This looks great. The changes to public interface are pretty small and > > moving the Log4jController class into the clients package seems like the > > right way to go. One question I have--it looks like the purpose of this > KIP > > is to enable dynamic setting of log levels in the Connect framework, but > > it's not clear how the Connect framework will use that new utility. Is > the > > "Example Usage" section (which involves invoking the utility with a > > namespace of "kafka.connect") actually meant to be part of the proposed > > changes to public interface? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:03 PM Arjun Satish > > wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone. > > > > > > I'd like to propose the following KIP to implement changing log levels > on > > > the fly in Connect workers: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-495%3A+Dynamically+Adjust+Log+Levels+in+Connect > > > > > > Would like to hear your thoughts on this. > > > > > > Thanks very much, > > > Arjun > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Thanks for the feedback, Chris! Yes, the example is pretty much how Connect will use the new feature. Tweaked the section to make this more clear. Best, On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:52 AM Chris Egerton wrote: > Hi Arjun, > > This looks great. The changes to public interface are pretty small and > moving the Log4jController class into the clients package seems like the > right way to go. One question I have--it looks like the purpose of this KIP > is to enable dynamic setting of log levels in the Connect framework, but > it's not clear how the Connect framework will use that new utility. Is the > "Example Usage" section (which involves invoking the utility with a > namespace of "kafka.connect") actually meant to be part of the proposed > changes to public interface? > > Cheers, > > Chris > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:03 PM Arjun Satish > wrote: > > > Hi everyone. > > > > I'd like to propose the following KIP to implement changing log levels on > > the fly in Connect workers: > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-495%3A+Dynamically+Adjust+Log+Levels+in+Connect > > > > Would like to hear your thoughts on this. > > > > Thanks very much, > > Arjun > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Hi Arjun, This looks great. The changes to public interface are pretty small and moving the Log4jController class into the clients package seems like the right way to go. One question I have--it looks like the purpose of this KIP is to enable dynamic setting of log levels in the Connect framework, but it's not clear how the Connect framework will use that new utility. Is the "Example Usage" section (which involves invoking the utility with a namespace of "kafka.connect") actually meant to be part of the proposed changes to public interface? Cheers, Chris On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:03 PM Arjun Satish wrote: > Hi everyone. > > I'd like to propose the following KIP to implement changing log levels on > the fly in Connect workers: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-495%3A+Dynamically+Adjust+Log+Levels+in+Connect > > Would like to hear your thoughts on this. > > Thanks very much, > Arjun >
[DISCUSS] KIP-495: Dynamically Adjust Log Levels in Connect
Hi everyone. I'd like to propose the following KIP to implement changing log levels on the fly in Connect workers: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-495%3A+Dynamically+Adjust+Log+Levels+in+Connect Would like to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks very much, Arjun
