The main challenge is doing this without exposing a bunch of internal classes. I haven't seen a proposal that handles that aspect well so far.
Ismael On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:21 AM Sönke Liebau <soenke.lie...@opencore.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > I think that idea is worth looking at. As you say, if no interceptor is > configured then the performance overhead should be negligible. Basically it > is then up to the user to decide if he wants tomtake the performance hit. > We should make sure to think about monitoring capabilities like time spent > in the interceptor for records etc. > > The most obvious use case I think is server side schema validation, which > Confluent are also offering as part of their commercial product, but other > ideas come to mind as well. > > Best regards, > Sönke > > Thomas Aley <thomas.a...@ibm.com> schrieb am Di., 3. Dez. 2019, 10:45: > > > Hi M. Manna, > > > > Thank you for your feedback, any and all thoughts on this are appreciated > > from the community. > > > > I think it is important to distinguish that there are two parts to this. > > One would be a server side interceptor framework and the other would be > > the interceptor implementations themselves. > > > > The idea would be that the Interceptor framework manifests as a plug > point > > in the request/response paths that by itself has negligible performance > > impact as without an interceptor registered in the framework it is > > essentially a no-op. This way the out-the-box behavior of the Kafka > broker > > remains essentially unchanged, it is only if the cluster administrator > > registers an interceptor into the framework that the path of a record is > > intercepted. This is much like the already accepted and implemented > client > > interceptors - the capability exists and it is an opt-in feature. > > > > As with the client interceptors and indeed interception in general, the > > interceptor implementations need to be thoughtfully crafted to ensure > > minimal performance impact. Yes the interceptor framework could tap into > > nearly everything but would only be tapping into the subset of APIs that > > the user wishes to intercept for their use case. > > > > Tom Aley > > thomas.a...@ibm.com > > > > > > > > From: "M. Manna" <manme...@gmail.com> > > To: Kafka Users <us...@kafka.apache.org> > > Cc: dev@kafka.apache.org > > Date: 02/12/2019 11:31 > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Broker Interceptors > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 09:41, Thomas Aley <thomas.a...@ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Kafka community, > > > > > > I am hoping to get some feedback and thoughts about broker > interceptors. > > > > > > KIP-42 Added Producer and Consumer interceptors which have provided > > Kafka > > > users the ability to collect client side metrics and trace the path of > > > individual messages end-to-end. > > > > > > This KIP also mentioned "Adding message interceptor on the broker makes > > a > > > lot of sense, and will add more detail to monitoring. However, the > > > proposal is to do it later in a separate KIP". > > > > > > One of the motivations for leading with client interceptors was to gain > > > experience and see how useable they are before tackling the server side > > > implementation which would ultimately "allow us to have a more > > > complete/detailed message monitoring". > > > > > > Broker interceptors could also provide more value than just more > > complete > > > and detailed monitoring such as server side schema validation, so I am > > > curious to learn if anyone in the community has progressed this work; > > has > > > ideas about other potential server side interceptor uses or has > actually > > > implemented something similar. > > > > > > > I personally feel that the cost here is the impact on performance. If I > > am > > right, this interceptor is going to tap into nearly everything. If you > > have > > strong guarantee (min.in.sync.replicas = N-1) then this may incur some > > delay (and let's not forget inter broker comms protection by TLS config). > > This may not be desirable for some systems. That said, it would be good > to > > know what others think about this. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Tom Aley > > > thomas.a...@ibm.com > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with > number > > > 741598. > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 > > 3AU > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > > 741598. > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 > 3AU > > > > >
