Re: [VOTE] KIP-183 - Change PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand to use AdminClient
Thanks, Tom! Great work. best, Colin On Mon, Jan 28, 2019, at 04:33, Tom Bentley wrote: > Hi Folks, > > It took a while, but the work for KIP-183 has now been merged. My thanks to > everyone involved. > > A few details changed between what was voted on and what ultimately got > merged. I've updated the KIP to reflect what was actually merged. If > anyone > is interested in the gory details they can look at > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=73632065=20=18 > and > https://github.com/apache/kafka/commit/269b65279c746bc54c611141a5a6509f9b310f11 > > Kind regards, > > Tom > > On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 at 16:30, Tom Bentley wrote: > > > Since no one has objected, I conclude that this KIP is again accepted. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Tom > > > > On 7 September 2017 at 22:31, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> The updated part in "AdminClient:electPreferredLeaders()" looks reasonable > >> to me. If there is no objections from the voted committer by end of the > >> day, I think you can mark it as accepted. > >> > >> > >> Guozhang > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Tom Bentley > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Unfortunately I've had to make a small change to the > >> > ElectPreferredLeadersResult, because exposing a Map >> > KafkaFuture> was incompatible with the case where > >> > electPreferredLeaders() was called with a null partitions argument. The > >> > change exposes methods to access the map which return futures, rather > >> than > >> > exposing the map (and crucially its keys) directly. > >> > > >> > This is described in more detail in the [DISCUSS] thread. > >> > > >> > Please take a look and recast your votes: > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-183+-+Change+ > >> > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient#KIP-183- > >> > ChangePreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommandtouseAdminClient-AdminClient: > >> > electPreferredLeaders() > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> > Tom > >> > > >> > On 4 September 2017 at 10:52, Ismael Juma wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi Tom, > >> > > > >> > > You can update the KIP for minor things like that. Worth updating the > >> > > thread if it's something that is done during the PR review. > >> > > > >> > > With regards to exceptions, yes, that's definitely desired. I filed a > >> > JIRA > >> > > a while back for this: > >> > > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5445 > >> > > > >> > > Ideally, new methods that we add would have this so that we don't > >> > increase > >> > > the tech debt that already exists. > >> > > > >> > > Ismael > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Tom Bentley > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hi Jun, > >> > > > > >> > > > You're correct about those other expected errors. If it's OK to > >> update > >> > > the > >> > > > KIP after the vote I'll add those. > >> > > > > >> > > > But this makes me wonder about the value of documenting expected > >> errors > >> > > in > >> > > > the Javadocs for the AdminClient (on the Results class, to be > >> > specific). > >> > > > Currently we don't do this, but it would be helpful for people using > >> > the > >> > > > AdminClient to know the kinds of errors they should expect, for > >> testing > >> > > > purposes for example. On the other hand it's a maintenance burden. > >> > Should > >> > > > we start documenting likely errors like this? > >> > > > > >> > > > Cheers, > >> > > > > >> > > > Tom > >> > > > > >> > > > On 4 September 2017 at 10:10, Tom Bentley > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > I see three +1s, no +0s and no -1, so the vote passes. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks to those who voted and/or commented on the discussion > >> thread. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On 1 September 2017 at 07:36, Gwen Shapira > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> Thank you! +1 (binding). > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:48 AM Jun Rao > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > Hi, Tom, > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Thanks for the KIP. +1. Just one more minor comment. It seems > >> that > >> > > the > >> > > > >> > ElectPreferredLeadersResponse > >> > > > >> > should expect at least 3 other types of errors : (1) request > >> > timeout > >> > > > >> > exception, (2) leader rebalance in-progress exception, (3) > >> can't > >> > > move > >> > > > to > >> > > > >> > the preferred replica exception (i.e., preferred replica not in > >> > sync > >> > > > >> yet). > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Jun > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Tom Bentley < > >> > t.j.bent...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-183 which will provide > >> an > >> > > > >> > AdminClient > >> > > > >> > > interface for electing the preferred replica, and refactor > >> the > >> > > > >> > > kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh tool to use this > >> interface. > >> > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-183 - Change PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand to use AdminClient
Hi Folks, It took a while, but the work for KIP-183 has now been merged. My thanks to everyone involved. A few details changed between what was voted on and what ultimately got merged. I've updated the KIP to reflect what was actually merged. If anyone is interested in the gory details they can look at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=73632065=20=18 and https://github.com/apache/kafka/commit/269b65279c746bc54c611141a5a6509f9b310f11 Kind regards, Tom On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 at 16:30, Tom Bentley wrote: > Since no one has objected, I conclude that this KIP is again accepted. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > On 7 September 2017 at 22:31, Guozhang Wang wrote: > >> Hi Tom, >> >> The updated part in "AdminClient:electPreferredLeaders()" looks reasonable >> to me. If there is no objections from the voted committer by end of the >> day, I think you can mark it as accepted. >> >> >> Guozhang >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Tom Bentley >> wrote: >> >> > Unfortunately I've had to make a small change to the >> > ElectPreferredLeadersResult, because exposing a Map> > KafkaFuture> was incompatible with the case where >> > electPreferredLeaders() was called with a null partitions argument. The >> > change exposes methods to access the map which return futures, rather >> than >> > exposing the map (and crucially its keys) directly. >> > >> > This is described in more detail in the [DISCUSS] thread. >> > >> > Please take a look and recast your votes: >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-183+-+Change+ >> > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient#KIP-183- >> > ChangePreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommandtouseAdminClient-AdminClient: >> > electPreferredLeaders() >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Tom >> > >> > On 4 September 2017 at 10:52, Ismael Juma wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Tom, >> > > >> > > You can update the KIP for minor things like that. Worth updating the >> > > thread if it's something that is done during the PR review. >> > > >> > > With regards to exceptions, yes, that's definitely desired. I filed a >> > JIRA >> > > a while back for this: >> > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5445 >> > > >> > > Ideally, new methods that we add would have this so that we don't >> > increase >> > > the tech debt that already exists. >> > > >> > > Ismael >> > > >> > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Tom Bentley >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi Jun, >> > > > >> > > > You're correct about those other expected errors. If it's OK to >> update >> > > the >> > > > KIP after the vote I'll add those. >> > > > >> > > > But this makes me wonder about the value of documenting expected >> errors >> > > in >> > > > the Javadocs for the AdminClient (on the Results class, to be >> > specific). >> > > > Currently we don't do this, but it would be helpful for people using >> > the >> > > > AdminClient to know the kinds of errors they should expect, for >> testing >> > > > purposes for example. On the other hand it's a maintenance burden. >> > Should >> > > > we start documenting likely errors like this? >> > > > >> > > > Cheers, >> > > > >> > > > Tom >> > > > >> > > > On 4 September 2017 at 10:10, Tom Bentley >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I see three +1s, no +0s and no -1, so the vote passes. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks to those who voted and/or commented on the discussion >> thread. >> > > > > >> > > > > On 1 September 2017 at 07:36, Gwen Shapira >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> Thank you! +1 (binding). >> > > > >> >> > > > >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:48 AM Jun Rao >> wrote: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > Hi, Tom, >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > Thanks for the KIP. +1. Just one more minor comment. It seems >> that >> > > the >> > > > >> > ElectPreferredLeadersResponse >> > > > >> > should expect at least 3 other types of errors : (1) request >> > timeout >> > > > >> > exception, (2) leader rebalance in-progress exception, (3) >> can't >> > > move >> > > > to >> > > > >> > the preferred replica exception (i.e., preferred replica not in >> > sync >> > > > >> yet). >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > Jun >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Tom Bentley < >> > t.j.bent...@gmail.com >> > > > >> > > > >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > Hi all, >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-183 which will provide >> an >> > > > >> > AdminClient >> > > > >> > > interface for electing the preferred replica, and refactor >> the >> > > > >> > > kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh tool to use this >> interface. >> > > > More >> > > > >> > > details here: >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- >> > > 183+-+Change+ >> > > > >> > > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Regards, >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Tom >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-183 - Change PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand to use AdminClient
Since no one has objected, I conclude that this KIP is again accepted. Thanks, Tom On 7 September 2017 at 22:31, Guozhang Wangwrote: > Hi Tom, > > The updated part in "AdminClient:electPreferredLeaders()" looks reasonable > to me. If there is no objections from the voted committer by end of the > day, I think you can mark it as accepted. > > > Guozhang > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Tom Bentley wrote: > > > Unfortunately I've had to make a small change to the > > ElectPreferredLeadersResult, because exposing a Map > KafkaFuture> was incompatible with the case where > > electPreferredLeaders() was called with a null partitions argument. The > > change exposes methods to access the map which return futures, rather > than > > exposing the map (and crucially its keys) directly. > > > > This is described in more detail in the [DISCUSS] thread. > > > > Please take a look and recast your votes: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-183+-+Change+ > > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient#KIP-183- > > ChangePreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommandtouseAdminClient-AdminClient: > > electPreferredLeaders() > > > > Thanks, > > > > Tom > > > > On 4 September 2017 at 10:52, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > You can update the KIP for minor things like that. Worth updating the > > > thread if it's something that is done during the PR review. > > > > > > With regards to exceptions, yes, that's definitely desired. I filed a > > JIRA > > > a while back for this: > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5445 > > > > > > Ideally, new methods that we add would have this so that we don't > > increase > > > the tech debt that already exists. > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Tom Bentley > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > You're correct about those other expected errors. If it's OK to > update > > > the > > > > KIP after the vote I'll add those. > > > > > > > > But this makes me wonder about the value of documenting expected > errors > > > in > > > > the Javadocs for the AdminClient (on the Results class, to be > > specific). > > > > Currently we don't do this, but it would be helpful for people using > > the > > > > AdminClient to know the kinds of errors they should expect, for > testing > > > > purposes for example. On the other hand it's a maintenance burden. > > Should > > > > we start documenting likely errors like this? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > On 4 September 2017 at 10:10, Tom Bentley > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I see three +1s, no +0s and no -1, so the vote passes. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks to those who voted and/or commented on the discussion > thread. > > > > > > > > > > On 1 September 2017 at 07:36, Gwen Shapira > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Thank you! +1 (binding). > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:48 AM Jun Rao wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi, Tom, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for the KIP. +1. Just one more minor comment. It seems > that > > > the > > > > >> > ElectPreferredLeadersResponse > > > > >> > should expect at least 3 other types of errors : (1) request > > timeout > > > > >> > exception, (2) leader rebalance in-progress exception, (3) can't > > > move > > > > to > > > > >> > the preferred replica exception (i.e., preferred replica not in > > sync > > > > >> yet). > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Jun > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Tom Bentley < > > t.j.bent...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Hi all, > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-183 which will provide > an > > > > >> > AdminClient > > > > >> > > interface for electing the preferred replica, and refactor the > > > > >> > > kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh tool to use this > interface. > > > > More > > > > >> > > details here: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > 183+-+Change+ > > > > >> > > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Regards, > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Tom > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-183 - Change PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand to use AdminClient
Hi Tom, The updated part in "AdminClient:electPreferredLeaders()" looks reasonable to me. If there is no objections from the voted committer by end of the day, I think you can mark it as accepted. Guozhang On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Tom Bentleywrote: > Unfortunately I've had to make a small change to the > ElectPreferredLeadersResult, because exposing a Map KafkaFuture> was incompatible with the case where > electPreferredLeaders() was called with a null partitions argument. The > change exposes methods to access the map which return futures, rather than > exposing the map (and crucially its keys) directly. > > This is described in more detail in the [DISCUSS] thread. > > Please take a look and recast your votes: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-183+-+Change+ > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient#KIP-183- > ChangePreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommandtouseAdminClient-AdminClient: > electPreferredLeaders() > > Thanks, > > Tom > > On 4 September 2017 at 10:52, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > You can update the KIP for minor things like that. Worth updating the > > thread if it's something that is done during the PR review. > > > > With regards to exceptions, yes, that's definitely desired. I filed a > JIRA > > a while back for this: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5445 > > > > Ideally, new methods that we add would have this so that we don't > increase > > the tech debt that already exists. > > > > Ismael > > > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Tom Bentley > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > You're correct about those other expected errors. If it's OK to update > > the > > > KIP after the vote I'll add those. > > > > > > But this makes me wonder about the value of documenting expected errors > > in > > > the Javadocs for the AdminClient (on the Results class, to be > specific). > > > Currently we don't do this, but it would be helpful for people using > the > > > AdminClient to know the kinds of errors they should expect, for testing > > > purposes for example. On the other hand it's a maintenance burden. > Should > > > we start documenting likely errors like this? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > On 4 September 2017 at 10:10, Tom Bentley > wrote: > > > > > > > I see three +1s, no +0s and no -1, so the vote passes. > > > > > > > > Thanks to those who voted and/or commented on the discussion thread. > > > > > > > > On 1 September 2017 at 07:36, Gwen Shapira > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Thank you! +1 (binding). > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:48 AM Jun Rao wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi, Tom, > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks for the KIP. +1. Just one more minor comment. It seems that > > the > > > >> > ElectPreferredLeadersResponse > > > >> > should expect at least 3 other types of errors : (1) request > timeout > > > >> > exception, (2) leader rebalance in-progress exception, (3) can't > > move > > > to > > > >> > the preferred replica exception (i.e., preferred replica not in > sync > > > >> yet). > > > >> > > > > >> > Jun > > > >> > > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Tom Bentley < > t.j.bent...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Hi all, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-183 which will provide an > > > >> > AdminClient > > > >> > > interface for electing the preferred replica, and refactor the > > > >> > > kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh tool to use this interface. > > > More > > > >> > > details here: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > 183+-+Change+ > > > >> > > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Regards, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Tom > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- -- Guozhang
Re: [VOTE] KIP-183 - Change PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand to use AdminClient
Unfortunately I've had to make a small change to the ElectPreferredLeadersResult, because exposing a Mapwas incompatible with the case where electPreferredLeaders() was called with a null partitions argument. The change exposes methods to access the map which return futures, rather than exposing the map (and crucially its keys) directly. This is described in more detail in the [DISCUSS] thread. Please take a look and recast your votes: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-183+-+Change+ PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient#KIP-183- ChangePreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommandtouseAdminClient-AdminClient: electPreferredLeaders() Thanks, Tom On 4 September 2017 at 10:52, Ismael Juma wrote: > Hi Tom, > > You can update the KIP for minor things like that. Worth updating the > thread if it's something that is done during the PR review. > > With regards to exceptions, yes, that's definitely desired. I filed a JIRA > a while back for this: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5445 > > Ideally, new methods that we add would have this so that we don't increase > the tech debt that already exists. > > Ismael > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Tom Bentley > wrote: > > > Hi Jun, > > > > You're correct about those other expected errors. If it's OK to update > the > > KIP after the vote I'll add those. > > > > But this makes me wonder about the value of documenting expected errors > in > > the Javadocs for the AdminClient (on the Results class, to be specific). > > Currently we don't do this, but it would be helpful for people using the > > AdminClient to know the kinds of errors they should expect, for testing > > purposes for example. On the other hand it's a maintenance burden. Should > > we start documenting likely errors like this? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tom > > > > On 4 September 2017 at 10:10, Tom Bentley wrote: > > > > > I see three +1s, no +0s and no -1, so the vote passes. > > > > > > Thanks to those who voted and/or commented on the discussion thread. > > > > > > On 1 September 2017 at 07:36, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > > > >> Thank you! +1 (binding). > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:48 AM Jun Rao wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi, Tom, > > >> > > > >> > Thanks for the KIP. +1. Just one more minor comment. It seems that > the > > >> > ElectPreferredLeadersResponse > > >> > should expect at least 3 other types of errors : (1) request timeout > > >> > exception, (2) leader rebalance in-progress exception, (3) can't > move > > to > > >> > the preferred replica exception (i.e., preferred replica not in sync > > >> yet). > > >> > > > >> > Jun > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Tom Bentley > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi all, > > >> > > > > >> > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-183 which will provide an > > >> > AdminClient > > >> > > interface for electing the preferred replica, and refactor the > > >> > > kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh tool to use this interface. > > More > > >> > > details here: > > >> > > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > 183+-+Change+ > > >> > > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Regards, > > >> > > > > >> > > Tom > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-183 - Change PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand to use AdminClient
Hi Tom, You can update the KIP for minor things like that. Worth updating the thread if it's something that is done during the PR review. With regards to exceptions, yes, that's definitely desired. I filed a JIRA a while back for this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5445 Ideally, new methods that we add would have this so that we don't increase the tech debt that already exists. Ismael On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Tom Bentleywrote: > Hi Jun, > > You're correct about those other expected errors. If it's OK to update the > KIP after the vote I'll add those. > > But this makes me wonder about the value of documenting expected errors in > the Javadocs for the AdminClient (on the Results class, to be specific). > Currently we don't do this, but it would be helpful for people using the > AdminClient to know the kinds of errors they should expect, for testing > purposes for example. On the other hand it's a maintenance burden. Should > we start documenting likely errors like this? > > Cheers, > > Tom > > On 4 September 2017 at 10:10, Tom Bentley wrote: > > > I see three +1s, no +0s and no -1, so the vote passes. > > > > Thanks to those who voted and/or commented on the discussion thread. > > > > On 1 September 2017 at 07:36, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > >> Thank you! +1 (binding). > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:48 AM Jun Rao wrote: > >> > >> > Hi, Tom, > >> > > >> > Thanks for the KIP. +1. Just one more minor comment. It seems that the > >> > ElectPreferredLeadersResponse > >> > should expect at least 3 other types of errors : (1) request timeout > >> > exception, (2) leader rebalance in-progress exception, (3) can't move > to > >> > the preferred replica exception (i.e., preferred replica not in sync > >> yet). > >> > > >> > Jun > >> > > >> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Tom Bentley > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-183 which will provide an > >> > AdminClient > >> > > interface for electing the preferred replica, and refactor the > >> > > kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh tool to use this interface. > More > >> > > details here: > >> > > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-183+-+Change+ > >> > > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > > >> > > Tom > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-183 - Change PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand to use AdminClient
Hi Jun, You're correct about those other expected errors. If it's OK to update the KIP after the vote I'll add those. But this makes me wonder about the value of documenting expected errors in the Javadocs for the AdminClient (on the Results class, to be specific). Currently we don't do this, but it would be helpful for people using the AdminClient to know the kinds of errors they should expect, for testing purposes for example. On the other hand it's a maintenance burden. Should we start documenting likely errors like this? Cheers, Tom On 4 September 2017 at 10:10, Tom Bentleywrote: > I see three +1s, no +0s and no -1, so the vote passes. > > Thanks to those who voted and/or commented on the discussion thread. > > On 1 September 2017 at 07:36, Gwen Shapira wrote: > >> Thank you! +1 (binding). >> >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:48 AM Jun Rao wrote: >> >> > Hi, Tom, >> > >> > Thanks for the KIP. +1. Just one more minor comment. It seems that the >> > ElectPreferredLeadersResponse >> > should expect at least 3 other types of errors : (1) request timeout >> > exception, (2) leader rebalance in-progress exception, (3) can't move to >> > the preferred replica exception (i.e., preferred replica not in sync >> yet). >> > >> > Jun >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Tom Bentley >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-183 which will provide an >> > AdminClient >> > > interface for electing the preferred replica, and refactor the >> > > kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh tool to use this interface. More >> > > details here: >> > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-183+-+Change+ >> > > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient >> > > >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > >> > > Tom >> > > >> > >> > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-183 - Change PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand to use AdminClient
I see three +1s, no +0s and no -1, so the vote passes. Thanks to those who voted and/or commented on the discussion thread. On 1 September 2017 at 07:36, Gwen Shapirawrote: > Thank you! +1 (binding). > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:48 AM Jun Rao wrote: > > > Hi, Tom, > > > > Thanks for the KIP. +1. Just one more minor comment. It seems that the > > ElectPreferredLeadersResponse > > should expect at least 3 other types of errors : (1) request timeout > > exception, (2) leader rebalance in-progress exception, (3) can't move to > > the preferred replica exception (i.e., preferred replica not in sync > yet). > > > > Jun > > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Tom Bentley > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-183 which will provide an > > AdminClient > > > interface for electing the preferred replica, and refactor the > > > kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh tool to use this interface. More > > > details here: > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-183+-+Change+ > > > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Tom > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-183 - Change PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand to use AdminClient
Thank you! +1 (binding). On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:48 AM Jun Raowrote: > Hi, Tom, > > Thanks for the KIP. +1. Just one more minor comment. It seems that the > ElectPreferredLeadersResponse > should expect at least 3 other types of errors : (1) request timeout > exception, (2) leader rebalance in-progress exception, (3) can't move to > the preferred replica exception (i.e., preferred replica not in sync yet). > > Jun > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Tom Bentley > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-183 which will provide an > AdminClient > > interface for electing the preferred replica, and refactor the > > kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh tool to use this interface. More > > details here: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-183+-+Change+ > > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Tom > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-183 - Change PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand to use AdminClient
Hi, Tom, Thanks for the KIP. +1. Just one more minor comment. It seems that the ElectPreferredLeadersResponse should expect at least 3 other types of errors : (1) request timeout exception, (2) leader rebalance in-progress exception, (3) can't move to the preferred replica exception (i.e., preferred replica not in sync yet). Jun On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Tom Bentleywrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-183 which will provide an AdminClient > interface for electing the preferred replica, and refactor the > kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh tool to use this interface. More > details here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-183+-+Change+ > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient > > > Regards, > > Tom >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-183 - Change PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand to use AdminClient
Thanks for the KIP, +1 (binding) from me. Ismael On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Tom Bentleywrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-183 which will provide an AdminClient > interface for electing the preferred replica, and refactor the > kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh tool to use this interface. More > details here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-183+-+Change+ > PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient > > > Regards, > > Tom >
[VOTE] KIP-183 - Change PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand to use AdminClient
Hi all, I would like to start the vote on KIP-183 which will provide an AdminClient interface for electing the preferred replica, and refactor the kafka-preferred-replica-election.sh tool to use this interface. More details here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-183+-+Change+PreferredReplicaLeaderElectionCommand+to+use+AdminClient Regards, Tom