Hi Jiangjie, Its under https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-+22++Expose+a+Partitioner+interface+in+the+new+producer I checked other KIPS they are under /KAFKA as well.
Thanks, Harsha On May 12, 2015 at 2:12:30 PM, Jiangjie Qin (j...@linkedin.com.invalid) wrote: Hey Harsha, It looks you created the KIP page at wrong place. . . Can you move the page to a child page of https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposa ls Thanks. Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On 5/6/15, 6:12 PM, "Harsha" <ka...@harsha.io> wrote: >Thanks for the review Joel. I agree don't need a init method we can use >configure. I'll update the KIP. >-Harsha > >On Wed, May 6, 2015, at 04:45 PM, Joel Koshy wrote: >> +1 with a minor comment: do we need an init method given it extends >> Configurable? >> >> Also, can you move this wiki out of drafts and add it to the table in >> >>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Propo >>sals? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Joel >> >> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 07:46:46AM -0700, Sriharsha Chintalapani wrote: >> > Thanks Jay. I removed partitioner.metadata from KIP. I¹ll send an >>updated patch. >> > >> > -- >> > Harsha >> > Sent with Airmail >> > >> > On May 5, 2015 at 6:31:47 AM, Sriharsha Chintalapani >>(harsh...@fastmail.fm) wrote: >> > >> > Thanks for the comments everyone. >> > Hi Jay, >> > I do have a question regarding configurable interface on how to >>pass a Map<String, ?> properties. I couldn¹t find any other classes >>using it. JMX reporter overrides it but doesn¹t implement it. So with >>configurable partitioner how can a user pass in partitioner >>configuration since its getting instantiated within the producer. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Harsha >> > >> > >> > On May 4, 2015 at 10:36:45 AM, Jay Kreps (jay.kr...@gmail.com) wrote: >> > >> > Hey Harsha, >> > >> > That proposal sounds good. One minor thing--I don't think we need to >>have >> > the partitioner.metadata property. Our reason for using string >>properties >> > is exactly to make config extensible at runtime. So a given >>partitioner can >> > add whatever properties make sense using the configure() api it >>defines. >> > >> > -Jay >> > >> > On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Harsha <ka...@harsha.io> wrote: >> > >> > > Thanks Jay & Gianmarco for the comments. I picked the option A, if >>user >> > > sends a partition id than it will applied and partitioner.class >>method >> > > will only called if partition id is null . >> > > Please take a look at the updated KIP here >> > > >> > > >>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-+22+-+Expose+a+Part >>itioner+interface+in+the+new+producer >> > > . Let me know if you see anything missing. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Harsha >> > > >> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015, at 02:15 AM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales >>wrote: >> > > > Hi, >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Here are the questions I think we should consider: >> > > > > 1. Do we need this at all given that we have the partition >>argument in >> > > > > ProducerRecord which gives full control? I think we do need it >>because >> > > this >> > > > > is a way to plug in a different partitioning strategy at run >>time and >> > > do it >> > > > > in a fairly transparent way. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Yes, we need it if we want to support different partitioning >>strategies >> > > > inside Kafka rather than requiring the user to code them >>externally. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > 3. Do we need to add the value? I suspect people will have uses >>for >> > > > > computing something off a few fields in the value to choose the >> > > partition. >> > > > > This would be useful in cases where the key was being used for >>log >> > > > > compaction purposes and did not contain the full information for >> > > computing >> > > > > the partition. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > I am not entirely sure about this. I guess that most partitioners >>should >> > > > not use it. >> > > > I think it makes it easier to reason about the system if the >>partitioner >> > > > only works on the key. >> > > > Hoever, if the value (and its serialization) are already >>available, there >> > > > is not much harm in passing them along. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > 4. This interface doesn't include either an init() or close() >>method. >> > > It >> > > > > should implement Closable and Configurable, right? >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > Right now the only application I can think of to have an init() >>and >> > > > close() >> > > > is to read some state information (e.g., load information) that is >> > > > published on some external distributed storage (e.g., zookeeper) >>by the >> > > > brokers. >> > > > It might be useful also for reconfiguration and state migration. >> > > > >> > > > I think it's not a very common use case right now, but if the >>added >> > > > complexity is not too much it might be worth to have support for >>these >> > > > methods. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > 5. What happens if the user both sets the partition id in the >> > > > > ProducerRecord and sets a partitioner? Does the partition id >>just get >> > > > > passed in to the partitioner (as sort of implied in this >>interface?). >> > > This >> > > > > is a bit weird since if you pass in the partition id you kind of >> > > expect it >> > > > > to get used, right? Or is it the case that if you specify a >>partition >> > > the >> > > > > partitioner isn't used at all (in which case no point in >>including >> > > > > partition in the Partitioner api). >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > The user should be able to override the partitioner on a >>per-record basis >> > > > by explicitly setting the partition id. >> > > > I don't think it makes sense for the partitioners to take "hints" >>on the >> > > > partition. >> > > > >> > > > I would even go the extra step, and have a default logic that >>accepts >> > > > both >> > > > key and partition id (current interface) and calls partition() >>only if >> > > > the >> > > > partition id is not set. The partition() method does *not* take >>the >> > > > partition ID as input (only key-value). >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Cheers, >> > > > -- >> > > > Gianmarco >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Cheers, >> > > > > >> > > > > -Jay >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Sriharsha Chintalapani < >> > > ka...@harsha.io> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > Here is the KIP for adding a partitioner interface for >> > > producer. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-+22+-+Expose+a+Part >>itioner+interface+in+the+new+producer >> > > > > > There is one open question about how interface should look >>like. >> > > Please >> > > > > > take a look and let me know if you prefer one way or the >>other. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > Harsha >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >>
