Thanks Bruno for your comments: A1 . BC+1. I let other people give their advice, and each of them makes sense.
BC+2. I believe you're right. I think I can manage to check whether names are set for repartition or changelog topics across different DSL operators in KStreamImpl. The complexity arises because repartition topic names can depend on the operator, such as selectKey before a join. If I detect unnamed topics, I could introduce a property like unNamedInternalTopics in InternalStreamBuilder to maintain a list of unnamed topics that I can check when topology is built. This approach would allow me to focus not only on sequence numbers but also on ensuring explicit topic naming for improved stability. I hope this is what you imagine. Let me know if you need further refinements! Sébastien, ________________________________ De : Bruno Cadonna <cado...@apache.org> Envoyé : mardi 26 novembre 2024 19:12 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. Hi, Thanks for the KIP! A1. I find the "auto.generated.topic.names" part a bit misleading, because actually the topic names are always auto-generated no matter if the processors and state stores are explicitly named or not. which leads me to BC+1. IMO this is not only about topic names, explicitly naming state stores would also benefit existing IQ queries. So the config should not necessarily be only focused on internal topics. Maybe a config name like invariant.persistence.naming or ensure.invariant.persistence.naming or enabled.invariant.persistence.naming. I am not too happy with the names but I hope you get the idea. BC+2. Can we not keep track of explicit naming within the DSL instead of relying on the 10-digit sequence number? Best, Bruno This email was screened for spam and malicious content but exercise caution anyway. On 22.11.24 22:04, Sebastien Viale wrote: > hi, > A1. Personally, I prefer the suggestion: require.auto.generated.topic.names. > If everyone agrees, I will update the KIP accordingly. > MJS-1. Sophie, I reviewed the ticket and the sub-tasks, and everything seems > clear to me. I must say that I sometimes felt confused with the constructors, > but now everything is much clearer. Based on my experience and discussions > with my teammates, I believe this is a good opportunity to simplify and > clarify the implementation. > The question is whether this should be part of a separate KIP. > I don’t see any issue with integrating it into the current one, but if > necessary, I’m happy to volunteer to open a new KIP. > In both cases, would it be okay for you if I validate it with you before > publishing? > cheers ! > > > > ________________________________ > De : Sophie Blee-Goldman <sop...@responsive.dev> > Envoyé : vendredi 22 novembre 2024 01:33 > 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. > > First off, thanks for the KIP! I think this is a great idea as it's super > easy to miss naming one thing and end up with a topology that isn't > upgradeable. > > A1. I actually had the same reaction as Almog to the name, I feel it's > slightly clearer as a positive instead of a negative, though I think the > rest of it is fine -- what about "require.auto.generated.topic.names" > instead? > > MJS-1. While I can see the advantage of having this stuff be > programmatically configured, I personally would prefer to keep this and > other topology-related configurations part of StreamsConfig. For one thing, > I think they would be much more discoverable as true configs. For another, > this still wouldn't solve the problem for configs that need to be passed in > up front, that is, to the Topology/StreamsBuilder constructor rather than > to StreamsBuilder#build. And imo whatever we do should work for all such > configs that are required for building a topology. > > Sebastien -- have you read through that ticket and its subtasks yet? I'd be > interested in your take on what I'm proposing there, as I think it could be > mutually beneficial. For context, I'm currently implementing a KIP that > introduces another such config in this category which needs to be passed > into the topology. > > This email was screened for spam and malicious content but exercise caution > anyway. > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 12:42 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Yes, the ticket is related. Also just saw it today. >> >> Did leave a comment on the ticket for Sophie to hopefully chime in on >> this KIP discussion. >> >> >> -Matthias >> >> On 11/21/24 9:06 AM, Sebastien Viale wrote: >>> 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<https://lists.apache.org/thread/dfgd2vcco7d1omjptfqp92kdocnlf3cq><https://lists.apache.org/thread/dfgd2vcco7d1omjptfqp92kdocnlf3cq<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><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>> >> < >> 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><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 >>>>> >>>> >>
