One more small change -- originally I proposed to only add this config to
the TopologyConfig, and not to the StreamsConfig. However while
implementing a POC I noticed that TopologyConfig does not have a
constructor that accepts a plain properties or config map, and only one
that takes in a StreamsConfig. Rather than adding a new constructor for
TopologyConfig I think it makes sense to just add this new config to both
StreamsConfig and TopologyConfig, as most people will generally want to
create their TopologyConfig from a shared global StreamsConfig, rather than
instantiating separate sets of configs.

I have made this change in the KIP so please take a look and let me know if
you have any concerns. Happy to discuss alternatives

On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 3:27 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <sop...@responsive.dev>
wrote:

> Thanks Almog! That makes sense to me, I've updated the KIP so that the
> ProcessorWrapper will extend Configurable but gave it a default no-op
> implementation so that it's optional.
>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 1:57 PM Almog Gavra <almog.ga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Sophie! This KIP will certainly make it easier to implement any
>> kind
>> of custom functionality across all processors in the DSL, I can imagine
>> quite a few use cases for this.
>>
>> One suggestion, we should consider including a configure() method that
>> takes in Map<String, ?> configs, so that it can be configured based on
>> things like application.id (e.g. for emitting custom metrics per
>> processor).
>>
>> - Almog
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 10:16 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
>> sop...@responsive.dev>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey all,
>> >
>> > We have a short KIP we'd like to propose which will allow injecting
>> custom
>> > code modules around the processors of Kafka Streams applications,
>> including
>> > DSL-built topologies.
>> >
>> > Please let us know if you have any thoughts or concerns
>> >
>> > <goog_579523372>
>> >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1112%3A+allow+custom+processor+wrapping
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Sophie
>> >
>>
>

Reply via email to