Hi Grant, I had a second look at the proposed changes to Metadata Request and Response and it seems to me that having a `controller_id` field would be more efficient for non-trivial cases than having a `is_controller` field for each broker (which would be false for all but 1 case).
Similar, but less clear is the best way to encode `marked_for_deletion` and `is_internal`. These will also be false for most topics (there is only one internal topic at the moment, for example), so it may make sense to have a topics_marked_for_deletion and internal_topics in the response. Because topics are identified by strings, it is not as clear-cut as the controller_id case, but it still seems like it would be a win for when it matters most (when the number of topics is large). Ismael On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com> wrote: > I have been updating the KIP-4 wiki page based on the last KIP call and > wanted to get some review and discussion around the server side > implementation for admin requests. Both the "ideal" functionality and the > "intermediated" functionality. The updates are still in progress, but this > section is the most critical and will likely have the most discussion. This > topic has had a few shifts in perspective and various discussions on > synchronous vs asynchronous server support. The wiki contains my current > perspective on the challenges and approach. > > If you have any thoughts or feedback on the "Server-side Admin Request > handlers" section here > < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-4+-+Command+line+and+centralized+administrative+operations#KIP-4-Commandlineandcentralizedadministrativeoperations-2.Server-sideAdminRequesthandlers > >. > Lets discuss them in this thread. > > For reference the last KIP discussion can be viewed here: > https://youtu.be/rFW0-zJqg5I?t=12m30s > > Thank you, > Grant > -- > Grant Henke > Software Engineer | Cloudera > gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke >
