Thanks, I missed that, I can update the KIP tomorrow to include that. Chris
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 6:15 PM Chris Egerton <chr...@aiven.io.invalid> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Thanks for the updates and the additional context. I have one last > nit after doing another readthrough: in the public interfaces section it > states that "There shouldn't be changes to the main client API as the API > doesn't use jakarta". This is almost true, but like Greg has mentioned > previously, there is the REST extension API: see the > ConnectRestExtensionContext interface [1] in the connect-api module. I > think we should call out that the signature of > ConnectRestExtensionContext::configurable will change to return an instance > of jakarta.ws.rs.core.Configurable instead of > javax.ws.rs.core.Configurable. > > This doesn't block my approval of the KIP since I think that the above is > an acceptable change to make, but IMO it should be added to give a better > picture of the changes to anyone else who views the KIP. > > [1] - > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/43676f7612b2155ecada54c61b129d996f58bae2/connect/api/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/connect/rest/ConnectRestExtensionContext.java#L22 > > Cheers, > > Other Chris > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 3:40 PM Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Chris, > > > > I can make those changes. For number 2 that was a holdover back when we > > were discussing 11 vs 12 and whether or not JDK 17 would be used, but we > > are going with 12 since 11 is deprecated so I will fix that. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 2:54 PM Chris Egerton <chr...@aiven.io.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! It's a bit of a drastic change to rip the bandaid > off > > > like this and require users running Connect to upgrade to JDK 17, but I > > > think it's the best out of the options that are available to us. > > > > > > Two small nits on the KIP: > > > 1. It'd be nice to link to KIP-1013 in the motivation section to > > establish > > > that there is already some precedent for bumping to JDK 17+ for > > server-side > > > components (i.e., Kafka brokers) in 4.0. > > > 2. In the compatibility section it's stated that "JDK 17+ will be > > required > > > if Jetty 12.x is chosen to be used". This is a pretty big "if". My > > > understanding is that we will definitely be using Jetty 12.x; can we > > remove > > > the "if" or is it still up for debate whether we'll do that switch for > > > Connect? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Other Chris > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 10:49 AM Christopher Shannon < > > > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > I will make a couple quick tweaks and open a vote. I think we should > > > target > > > > JDK 17, JavaEE 10 and Jetty 12 because Jetty 11 is now EOL. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:13 PM Greg Harris > > <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > > > Please open a vote thread for this. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 9:07 AM Christopher Shannon < > > > > > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I just wanted to bump this and see if anyone had more feedback > > before > > > > > > trying to call a vote for this for 4.0? > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 3:41 PM Christopher Shannon < > > > > > > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Greg, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Ok sounds good we can target JDK 17 in this KIP if we decide > > to > > > do > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > 2. For the EE version, I don't think it really matters since we > > > won't > > > > > be > > > > > > > using any new features that I am aware of. It's just something > I > > > > > noticed > > > > > > > that we will need to pick because Jetty 12 supports multiple > > > versions > > > > > so > > > > > > it > > > > > > > would affect which spec jars we use. In the past Jetty > versions > > > have > > > > > > been > > > > > > > tied to a specific Servlet spec but the new Jetty 12 they have > > > > > abstracted > > > > > > > things away and they support multiple versions simultaneously. > > > > There's > > > > > > > different versions for all the specs but the primary one to > note > > > for > > > > us > > > > > > > would be that JavaEE 9 uses the Servlet 5.0 spec and JavaEE 10 > > uses > > > > the > > > > > > > Servlet 6.0 spec. JavaEE 11 is under development and will use > the > > > > > Servlet > > > > > > > 6.1 spec. So we may not really need to call out the EE version > at > > > all > > > > > if > > > > > > it > > > > > > > doesn't matter and we are not using specific features but I > > wanted > > > to > > > > > > bring > > > > > > > it up since multiple versions are listed as being compatible > with > > > > Jetty > > > > > > 12 > > > > > > > so we need to pick one. On the main page they list the > different > > > > > servlet > > > > > > > specs they support: https://eclipse.dev/jetty/ > > > > > > > 3. Right, I didn't mean we should include it in the KIP, I was > > more > > > > > > asking > > > > > > > I guess how to go about things. It looks like we could use a > lot > > of > > > > it > > > > > > and > > > > > > > adapt the work already done. While it's under the Apache 2.0 > > > license > > > > > and > > > > > > we > > > > > > > could use it, someone else wrote it so it would still be good > to > > > > > properly > > > > > > > credit that person as you mentioned. If I work on it I would > > > probably > > > > > > start > > > > > > > over with a new branch and just use the old PR as a guide and > > then > > > > > maybe > > > > > > > figure out a way to credit the original author. There's always > > that > > > > > > > co-author tag that could be used I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 12:11 PM Greg Harris > > > > > <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hey Chris, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks for your questions! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 1. KIPs are generally immutable once they've been voted on. In > > > this > > > > > > >> case, I think it's better that this KIP include the bump to > Java > > > 17 > > > > > > >> just for Connect and MirrorMaker 2, and should include that in > > the > > > > KIP > > > > > > >> title. > > > > > > >> 2. I'm not familiar with the difference, can you provide some > > more > > > > > > >> context that would help us make a decision? AFAIU we haven't > > > > specified > > > > > > >> an EE version in the past, and we don't do any sort of > automated > > > > > > >> testing for compatibility. I think it would be good to call > out > > > > which > > > > > > >> components have JavaEE-sensitive dependencies (just > > > > connect-runtime?). > > > > > > >> We do not want to accidentally give users the idea that the > > > clients > > > > > > >> depend on the JavaEE version, as that could be very confusing. > > > > > > >> 3. That's an implementation detail left up to anyone that > > effects > > > > this > > > > > > >> KIP on the repo, and doesn't need to be mentioned in the KIP > > > > itself. I > > > > > > >> have seen people adopt changes from un-merged PRs after the > > > original > > > > > > >> contributor has lost interest, while still crediting the > > original > > > > > > >> contributor for their portion of the changes. If you're doing > > > this, > > > > > > >> then it's ultimately up to your judgement. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > >> Greg > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 6:30 AM Christopher Shannon > > > > > > >> <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Hi Greg, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Thanks for the detailed analysis on the connect framework. > It > > > > sounds > > > > > > >> like > > > > > > >> > hopefully we can go ahead and require JDK 17+ and bump that > > > > > dependency > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > >> > the ConnectRestExtensionContext. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I agree we can leave it open and hear what others think as > > well > > > > > about > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > requirement, if everyone ends up agreeing, I can update the > > KIP > > > to > > > > > > >> reflect > > > > > > >> > requiring JDK 17 and going with Jetty 12. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I had a couple of questions > > > > > > >> > 1) If we go with JDK 17 as a requirement for the Connect > > > > framework, > > > > > > >> should > > > > > > >> > we modify and make that part of KIP-1013 or keep it in this > > one? > > > > > > >> > 2) Should we go with JavaEE 9 or JavaEE 10? I'm not sure how > > > much > > > > it > > > > > > >> > matters in this case. > > > > > > >> > 3) Can we just re-open > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10176 > > > > > as > > > > > > a > > > > > > >> > starting point or maybe we can create a new PR and use it > as a > > > > > basis? > > > > > > >> It's > > > > > > >> > a bit old so I suspect there would be a ton of conflicts so > it > > > > might > > > > > > be > > > > > > >> > best to start over and use it as a guide. I can work on a > new > > PR > > > > > once > > > > > > we > > > > > > >> > are all on the same page. I don't think it would take too > long > > > to > > > > > put > > > > > > >> > together since most of the work is just dependency updates > and > > > > > package > > > > > > >> > renaming. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Chris > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 8:59 PM Greg Harris > > > > > > >> <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid> > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Hey all, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > I looked into how Debezium handled the javax->jakarta > > > changeover > > > > > for > > > > > > >> > > Quarkus, and found this release note: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://debezium.io/blog/2023/04/20/debezium-2-2-final-released/#new-quarkus-3 > > > > > > >> > > It appears that Debezium 2.1 required Quarkus < 3.0, and > > > > Debezium > > > > > > 2.2 > > > > > > >> > > required Quarkus >= 3.0. The upgrade for Kafka could be > very > > > > > similar > > > > > > >> > > and not incur a major version release. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > We can leave some time to hear from anyone else that is > > > > impacted > > > > > by > > > > > > >> > > this change, but from the open source projects present on > > > > github, > > > > > > this > > > > > > >> > > LGTM. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > Greg > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 5:27 PM Greg Harris < > > > > greg.har...@aiven.io > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thank you so much for opening this KIP, and making sure > > > Kafka > > > > > > keeps > > > > > > >> up > > > > > > >> > > > with the rest of the Java ecosystem! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I took a look around at some Open Source connector > > > > > > implementations, > > > > > > >> > > > and checked their Java version support: > > > > > > >> > > > * The Aiven connect plugins (http, bigquery, jdbc, > > > > > elasticsearch, > > > > > > >> > > > opensearch, commons, s3, transforms, gcs), 6/9 are > tested > > > with > > > > > JDK > > > > > > >> 17 > > > > > > >> > > > in CI, 2/9 JDK 11, and 1/9 JDK 8. I'll look into > improving > > > the > > > > > > >> testing > > > > > > >> > > > matrix, but I don't expect substantial problems with > > > requiring > > > > > JDK > > > > > > >> 17. > > > > > > >> > > > * The Debezium Project lists Java 11+ compatibility: > > > > > > >> > > > https://debezium.io/releases/ and appears to use Java > 22 > > > (ga) > > > > > and > > > > > > >> 23 > > > > > > >> > > > (ea) in their CI: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/debezium/debezium/blob/9cdaa38453c9f065c6075d31636592a5b147518f/.github/workflows/jdk-outreach-workflow.yml#L20 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I think the bigger problem really is the > > > ConnectRestExtension, > > > > > > since > > > > > > >> > > > we've baked the rs-api type into the signature of > > > > > > >> > > > ConnectRestExtensionContext. > > > > > > >> > > > * Aiven doesn't have any ConnectRestExtensions, so this > > > isn't > > > > a > > > > > > >> concern > > > > > > >> > > for us. > > > > > > >> > > > * The Debezium Project has at least 6 > ConnectRestExtension > > > > > > >> > > > implementations: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Adebezium%2Fdebezium+ConnectRestExtension+language%3AJava&type=code&l=Java > > > > > > >> > > > . Some of these are baked into artifacts that I know > for a > > > > fact > > > > > > are > > > > > > >> > > > used in normal connect deployments. > > > > > > >> > > > * I found a healthcheck extension that looks > unmaintained: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/LoObp4ck/kafka-connect-healthchecks/blob/2d9dbfee900d9f85e6acd9a09bd04969afa46261/src/main/java/com/loobpack/data/kafka/connect/healthcheck/extension/HealthCheckConnectRestExtension.java#L9 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > I figure that adopting this KIP would mean that the > > Debezium > > > > > > project > > > > > > >> > > > would be forced to bump their major version 3.0 to be > > > > compatible > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > >> > > > Connect 4.0, or otherwise change their packaging, so I'd > > > like > > > > to > > > > > > >> hear > > > > > > >> > > > from the Debezium folks what they think of this > proposal. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > Greg > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 4:43 PM Christopher Shannon > > > > > > >> > > > <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I'm proposing a KIP for Kafka 4.0 to upgrade to to > > Jakarta > > > > and > > > > > > >> JavaEE 9 > > > > > > >> > > > > APIs. This will also upgrade dependencies like Jetty > and > > > > move > > > > > > >> away from > > > > > > >> > > > > the depcrated javax namespace to be in line with other > > > > > libraries > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > >> > > > > frameworks. There was some initial > > > > > > >> > > > > < > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/p4qbqh8r77h4khn3yoof2b0gbq3wbc5q > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > discussion and below is the KIP. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Please take a look and let me know what you think: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1032%3A+Upgrade+to+Jakarta+and+JavaEE+9+in+Kafka+4.0 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > >> > > > > Chris > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
