+1 to the updated wiki (non-binding)
On 5/19/15, 2:26 PM, "Andrii Biletskyi" <andrii.bilets...@stealth.ly>
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Sorry I wasn't able to participate. I don't have objections about removing
>config changes from AlterTopic (as I understand both AddedConfig and
>DeletedConfig) - you are welcome to update the KIP page.
>
>Thanks,
>Andrii Biletskyi
>
>On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Aditya Auradkar <
>aaurad...@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Updating the discussion with the latest comments.
>>
>> 1. We discussed adding 2 new API's (AlterConfig and DescribeConfig).
>>I'll
>> update KIP-21 with details on these.
>> 2. Discussed during the KIP hangout. We are in agreement.
>>
>> (1) has a dependency on KIP-4 being completed. Rest of the work in the
>>KIP
>> can be implemented independently. Any concerns if we tackle it as two
>> separate work items implementation wise?
>>
>> We also discussed changing the AlterTopic command in KIP-4 to not
>>include
>> config changes. Instead, all config changes will pass through the newly
>> proposed AlterConfig. If no-one objects, I can make some changes to
>>KIP-4
>> to reflect this.
>>
>> Aditya
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Jay Kreps [jay.kr...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:51 AM
>> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-21 Dynamic Configuration
>>
>> Hey Aditya,
>>
>> Two comments:
>>
>> 1. Yeah we need to reconcile this with the APIs in KIP-4. I think it
>>does
>> make sense to allow setting config during topic creation. I agree with
>>your
>> summary that having alter topic and alter config may be confusing, but
>> there are also some non-config changes such as replication factor and
>> partition count that alter topic can carry out. What is the final state
>>you
>> are proposing?
>>
>> 2. This is implementation related so probably can be removed from the
>>KIP
>> entirely, but you seem to be proposing a separate config manager for
>>each
>> config override type. Should we just generalize TopicConfigManager to be
>> ConfigOverrideManager and have it handle all the override types we will
>> have? I think I may just be unclear on what you are proposing...
>>
>> -Jay
>>
>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Aditya Auradkar <
>> aaurad...@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > Yeah, that was just a typo. I've fixed it. Thanks for calling it out.
>> >
>> > In KIP-4, I believe we have 3 types of requests: CreateTopic,
>>AlterTopic
>> > and DeleteTopic. The topic configs are a sub-type of the Create and
>>Alter
>> > commands. I think it would be nice to simply have a AlterConfig
>>command
>> > that can alter any type of config rather than having a specific
>> > ClientConfig.
>> >
>> > AlterConfig => [ConfigType [AddedConfigEntry] [DeletedConfig]]
>> > ConfigType => string
>> > AddedConfigEntry => ConfigKey ConfigValue
>> > ConfigKey => string
>> > ConfigValue => string
>> > DeletedConfig => string
>> >
>> > The downside of this approach is that we will have 2 separate ways of
>> > changing topic configs (AlterTopic and AlterConfig). While a general
>> > AlterConfig only makes sense if we plan to have more than two types of
>> > entity configs.. it's definitely more future proof. Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Aditya
>> >
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: Todd Palino [tpal...@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:39 PM
>> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-21 Dynamic Configuration
>> >
>> > Agree with Jun here on the JSON format. I think your intention was
>>likely
>> > to have actual JSON here and it was just a typo in the wiki?
>> >
>> > -Todd
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Aditya,
>> > >
>> > > Another thing to consider. In KIP-4, we are adding a new RPC
>>request to
>> > > change and retrieve topic configs. Do we want to add a similar RPC
>> > request
>> > > to change configs per client id? If so, do we want to introduce a
>> > separate
>> > > new request or have a combined new request for both topic and
>>client id
>> > > level config changes?
>> > >
>> > > A minor point in the wiki, for the json format in ZK, we should
>>change
>> > > {X1=Y1,
>> > > X2=Y2..} to a json map, right?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Jun
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Aditya Auradkar <
>> > > aaurad...@linkedin.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-21+-+Dynamic+Config
>>uration
>> > > >
>> > > > Aditya
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
