Thank you very much for your reviews! A1 I will keep the disallow.auto.generated.topic.names configuration in the KIP for now while waiting for other suggestions.
A2 I thought about making the implementation typesafe; it would, of course, complicate the implementation, but for me, this feature is intended for new Kafka Streams applications or those after a reset. I agree with Matthias. If a user wants to enable the check, they will simply need to avoid naming topics like the auto-generated ones. MJS-1 It might be a good idea to add your proposal to the KIP. I just wonder how to distinguish configurations that must be set 'programmatically' from others (e.g., topology optimization and this one) I am open to any suggestions. Is this ticket related to what you are proposing https://lists.apache.org/thread/dfgd2vcco7d1omjptfqp92kdocnlf3cq cheers, Sébastien ________________________________ De : Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> Envoyé : jeudi 21 novembre 2024 02:48 À : dev@kafka.apache.org <dev@kafka.apache.org> Objet : [EXT] Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-1111: Enforcing Explicit Naming for Kafka Streams Internal Topics Warning External sender Do not click on any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks for the KIP. Overall this does sound useful. About Almog's comments (A1) -- I don't think that `topics.internal.require.explicit.naming` would be a good name, as we use `topic.` prefix for actual topic configs. Thus, KS would pickup `internal.require.explicit.naming` and try to apply is as topic config what would either crash or log a spurious WARN what would be annoying? (A2) -- We would need to check the code if such a strategy would work as expected? If users pass in a name for a previously un-named topic, we might get an cascading index shift which might be undesired (and could "break" processor level metrics)? But I am also not sure if we actually need a migration path? If might be ok if this new feature only work for new deployments? (Or use can re-set their application.) MJS-1: I have another question though about the risk such a config implies? Given that configs are often managed from "outside", one could easily break an exiting application which does not have this config enable, by enable the config. Of course, we already have similar config which are equally dangerous; however, most people don't like that one need to pass in the config into `StreamsBuilder.build(configs)` method anyway, so maybe we could make a first step to get rid of this via this KIP? Thus, I am wondering if a config is actually the right way to go? Should we instead make it feature of `StreamsBuilder` that one can enable programmatically? Not 100% how we would do this, but maybe we could use a builder pattern (to allow us to add similar thing in the future), and deprecate the current constructor of `StreamsBuilder`? // new way to build a `StreamsBuilder` StreamsBuilder builder = StreamsBuilder.build(); // if we don't extend the scope of this KIP, we might also need: StreamsBuilder builder = StreamsBuilder.build(Properties); Or we do extend this KIP and deprecate existing config (like topology optimization) if favor of the new builder pattern: // enable the new feature StreamsBuilder builder = StreamsBuilder.requireExplicitNaming().build(); // or StreamsBuilder builder = StreamsBuilder.disableNameGeneration().build(); Thoughts? I am not 100% sure if this is a good idea or not, but thought it cannot hurt to throw it out. -Matthias This email was screened for spam and malicious content but exercise caution anyway. On 11/18/24 12:57 PM, Almog Gavra wrote: > Hi Sebastien, > > Thanks for the KIP! In general, I'm a fan of giving users the tools they > need to protect their organization so I'm supportive of this proposal. A > few nits and comments: > > A1. [nit] consider 'topics.internal.require.explicit.naming' so that (a) we > can group anything else we introduce for "topics.internal" with the same > prefix and (b) it's not a double negative (don't disallow is the default, > instead of don't require). > A2. I think we can improve on the implementation by making it typesafe > instead of checking whether the topic matches some pattern. I think a > migration path for users that want to turn this flag on, but already have > some auto-generated names, is to manually specify the auto-generated names > for preexisting topics. This would enforce future topics naming, but not > penalize them for having used auto generated names in the past. This makes > the implementation a little more challenging, but I think it's worthwhile. > > Cheers, > Almog > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 12:20 AM Sebastien Viale < > sebastien.vi...@michelin.com> wrote: > >> Hi Everyone, >> >> I would like to start a discussion on KIP-1111: Enforcing Explicit Naming >> for Kafka Streams Internal Topics< >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1111%3A+Enforcing+Explicit+Naming+for+Kafka+Streams+Internal+Topics<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1111%3A+Enforcing+Explicit+Naming+for+Kafka+Streams+Internal+Topics> >>> >> This proposal aims to add a configuration that prevents a Kafka Streams >> application from starting if any of its internal topics have auto-generated >> names. >> Regards, >> >> Sébastien >> >
