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
>> > >
>>
>

Reply via email to