Hi all, I have made a small change to the KIP during the implementation. We have made the `ProtocolName` field in the `JoinGroupResponse` nullable starting from version 7. We have made this change in order to make the API more consistent. In the `JoinGroupResponse`, `SyncGroupRequest`, and `SyncGroupResponse`, `ProtocolType` and `ProtocolName` are all nullable except for the one case mentioned above. The impact of the change is small.
I have updated the KIP to reflect this. Please, express your concerns if you disagree with this change. Best, David On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:36 PM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi all, > > The vote has passed with +5 binding votes (Jason Gustafson, David Arthur, > Gwen Shapira, > Guozhang Wang, Harsha Chintalapani) and +2 non-binding votes (Eno > Thereska, Satish Duggana). > > Thanks to everyone! > > Best, > David > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:46 PM Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 11:10 AM Harsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io> >> wrote: >> > >> > +1 ( binding). Much needed! >> > -Harsha >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:17 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > +1 （binding） >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:55 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > Yeah that makes sense, it is a good-to-have if we can push through >> this in >> > > 2.5 but if we do not have bandwidth that's fine too :) >> > > >> > > Guozhang >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:40 PM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Guozhang, >> > > >> > > Thank you for your input. >> > > >> > > 1) You're right. I've put it there due to the version bump only. I'll >> make >> > > it clearer. >> > > >> > > 2) I'd rather prefer to keep the scope as it is because 1) that field >> is >> > > not related to >> > > the problem that we are solving here and 2) I am not sure that I will >> have >> > > the >> > > bandwidth to do this before the feature freeze. The PR is already >> ready. >> > > That being >> > > said, as the addition of that field is part of KIP-429 and KIP-429 has >> > > already been >> > > accepted, we could give it a shot to avoid having to bump the version >> > > twice. I could >> > > try putting together a PR before the feature freeze but without >> guarantee. >> > > Does that >> > > make sense? >> > > >> > > David >> > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:44 AM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > Hello David, >> > > >> > > Thanks for the KIP! I have read through the proposal and had one minor >> > > >> > > and >> > > >> > > one meta comment. But overall it looks good to me! >> > > >> > > 1) The JoinGroupRequest format does not have any new fields proposed, >> > > >> > > so we >> > > >> > > could either clarify that it is listed here but without modifications >> > > >> > > (only >> > > >> > > version bumps) or just remove it from the wiki. >> > > >> > > 2) Could we consider adding a "protocol version" to allow brokers to >> > > >> > > select >> > > >> > > the leader with the highest version? This thought is brought up in >> > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ >> > > >> KIP-429%3A+Kafka+Consumer+Incremental+Rebalance+Protocol#KIP-429:KafkaConsumerIncrementalRebalanceProtocol-LookingintotheFuture:AssignorVersion >> > > >> > > . >> > > I'm fine with keeping this KIP's scope as is, just wondering if you >> feel >> > > comfortable piggy-backing this change as well if we are going to bump >> up >> > > the JoinGroupReq/Response anyways. >> > > >> > > Guozhang >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:10 AM Eno Thereska <eno.there...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > This is awesome! +1 (non binding) >> > > Eno >> > > >> > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:00 PM Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > Thank you for the KIP. Awesomely cloud-native improvement :) >> > > >> > > +1 (binding) >> > > >> > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 9:35 AM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-559: Make the Kafka Protocol >> > > >> > > Friendlier >> > > >> > > with L7 Proxies. >> > > >> > > The KIP is here: >> > > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ >> > > KIP-559%3A+Make+the+Kafka+Protocol+Friendlier+with+L7+Proxies >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > David >> > > >> > > -- >> > > -- Guozhang >> > > >> > > -- >> > > -- Guozhang >> > > >> > > -- >> > > -- Guozhang >> > > >> >
