Harsha/ Don, Are you guys OK with option 2? I am not aware of all the existing authorizer implementations, however ranger has one for sure. Getting direct feedback from you guys will be really valuable.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Hi Don, > > This is true in Java 7, but Java 8 introduces default methods and this > workaround is no longer required. During the Interceptor KIP discussion, it > was decided that it was fine to stick to interfaces given that we are > likely to move to Java 8 in the nearish future (probably no later than the > Java 9 release). > > Ismael > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Don Bosco Durai <bo...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Ashish > > > > If we are going by option #2, then I can suggest we give an abstract > > implementation of the Interface and recommend anyone implementing their > own > > plugin to extend from the abstract class, rather than implement the > > interface? > > > > The advantage is, in the future if we add add any new methods in the > > Interface (e.g. Similar to getDescription()), then we can give a dummy > > implementation of the new method and this won’t break the compilation of > > any external implementation. Else over the time it will be challenging > for > > anyone customizing the implementation to keep track of changes to the > > Interface. > > > > Thanks > > > > Bosco > > > > > > > > > > On 4/7/16, 11:21 AM, "Ashish Singh" <asi...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > > >Hello Harsha, > > > > > >On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Harsha <m...@harsha.io> wrote: > > > > > >"My only ask is to have this in 0.10. As Jay pointed out, right now > > >> there > > >> are not many implementations out there, we might want to fix it ASAP." > > >> > > >> Probably there aren't many implementations but there are lot of users > > >> using these implementations in production clusters. > > >> Isn't this going to break the rolling upgrade? > > > > > >It will and it is a concern, in my previous mail I have mentioned this > as > > >an issue if we choose to go this route. However, if we actually decide > to > > >do this, I would say it is better to do it sooner than later, as fewer > > >implementations will be affected. Below is excerpt from my previous > mail. > > > > > >Increase scope of KIP-50 to move authorizer and related classes to a > > >separate package. The new package will have java interface. This will > > allow > > >implementations to not depend on kafka core and just on authorizer > > package, > > >make authorization interface follow kafka’s coding standards and will > > allow > > >java implementations to be cleaner. We can either completely drop scala > > >interface, which might be a pain for existing implementations, or we can > > >have scala interface wrap java interface. Later allows a cleaner > > >deprecation path for existing scala authorizer interface, however it may > > or > > >may not be feasible as Kafka server will have to somehow decide which > > >interface it should be looking for while loading authorizer > > implementation, > > >this can probably be solved with a config or some reflection. If we > choose > > >to go this route, I can dig deeper. > > > > > >If we go with option 2 and commit on getting this in ASAP, preferably in > > >0.10, there will be fewer implementations that will be affected. > > > > > >and also moving to Java , > > >> a authorizer implementation going to run inside a KafkaBroker and I > > >> don't see why this is necessary to move to clients package. > > >> Are we planning on introducing common module to have it independent of > > >> broker and client code? > > >> > > >Yes, I think that would take away the requirement of depending on Kafka > > >core from authorizer implementations. Do you suggest otherwise? > > > > > > > > >> -Harsha > > >> > > >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016, at 10:52 AM, Ashish Singh wrote: > > >> > We might want to take a call here. Following are the options. > > >> > > > >> > 1. Let KIP-50 be the way it is, i.e., just add getDescription() > to > > >> > existing scala authorizer interface. It will break binary > > >> > compatibility > > >> > (only when using CLI and/or AdminCommand from >= 0.10 against > > >> > authorizer > > >> > implementations based on 0.9.). If we go this route, it is a > > simpler > > >> > change > > >> > and existing implementations won’t have to change anything on > their > > >> > end. > > >> > 2. Increase scope of KIP-50 to move authorizer and related > classes > > to > > >> > a > > >> > separate package. The new package will have java interface. This > > will > > >> > allow > > >> > implementations to not depend on kafka core and just on > authorizer > > >> > package, > > >> > make authorization interface follow kafka’s coding standards and > > will > > >> > allow > > >> > java implementations to be cleaner. We can either completely drop > > >> > scala > > >> > interface, which might be a pain for existing implementations, or > > we > > >> > can > > >> > have scala interface wrap java interface. Later allows a cleaner > > >> > deprecation path for existing scala authorizer interface, however > > it > > >> > may or > > >> > may not be feasible as Kafka server will have to somehow decide > > which > > >> > interface it should be looking for while loading authorizer > > >> > implementation, > > >> > this can probably be solved with a config or some reflection. If > we > > >> > choose > > >> > to go this route, I can dig deeper. > > >> > > > >> > If we decide to go with option 1, I think it would be fair to say > that > > >> > scala authorizer interface will be around for some time, as there > > will be > > >> > more implementations relying on it. If we go with option 2 and > commit > > on > > >> > getting this in ASAP, preferably in 0.10, there will be fewer > > >> > implementations that will be affected. > > >> > > > >> > *Another thing to notice is that scala authorizer interface is not > > >> > annotated as unstable.* > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Ashish Singh <asi...@cloudera.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > I see value in minimizing breaking changes and I do not oppose the > > >> idea of > > >> > > increasing scope of KIP-50 to move auth interface to java. > > >> > > > > >> > > As authorizer implementations do not really need to depend on > Kafka > > >> core, > > >> > > I would suggest that we keep authorizer interface and its > components > > >> in a > > >> > > separate package. I share the concern that right now using > Resource, > > >> > > Operation, etc, in java implementations is messy. I had to deal > with > > >> lot of > > >> > > it while writing Apache Sentry plugin. > > >> > > > > >> > > My only ask is to have this in 0.10. As Jay pointed out, right now > > >> there > > >> > > are not many implementations out there, we might want to fix it > > ASAP. > > >> I can > > >> > > only speak of Sentry integration and I think 0.10 will be the best > > for > > >> such > > >> > > a change, as I should be able to adopt the changes in Sentry > > >> integration > > >> > > before a lot of users start using it. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> It is small, but breaks binary compatibility. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Ismael > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > KIP-50 as defined is very small. I don't see any harm in > putting > > it > > >> in > > >> > >> as > > >> > >> > is and then tackling the follow up work. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Ismael Juma < > ism...@juma.me.uk> > > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Thanks Grant. I wonder if KIP-50 should just be done as part > of > > >> this > > >> > >> > work. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Ismael > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Grant Henke < > > ghe...@cloudera.com> > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > My work with KIP-4 found that many of the Scala classes > used > > in > > >> the > > >> > >> > > > Authorizer interface are needed in the Clients package when > > >> adding > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > > > various ACL requests and responses. I also found that we > > don't > > >> have > > >> > >> > > > standard Exceptions defined for the authorizer interface. > > This > > >> means > > >> > >> > that > > >> > >> > > > when I add the Authorizer calls to the broker and wire > > >> protocols all > > >> > >> > > > exceptions will be reported as an "Unknown Error" back to > the > > >> user > > >> > >> via > > >> > >> > > the > > >> > >> > > > wire protocol. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > I have written more about it on the KIP-4 wiki and created > > >> jiras to > > >> > >> > track > > >> > >> > > > those issues (See below). I think we should wrap up this > KIP > > as > > >> is > > >> > >> and > > >> > >> > > > tackle the Java/Exception changes as a part of those > > jiras/kips. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > - KIP-4 "Follow Up Changes" > > >> > >> > > > < > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-4+-+Command+line+and+centralized+administrative+operations#KIP-4-Commandlineandcentralizedadministrativeoperations-FollowUpChangesfollow-up-changes > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > - KAFKA-3509 < > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3509>: > > >> > >> > > > Provide > > >> > >> > > > an Authorizer interface using the Java client enumerator > > >> classes > > >> > >> > > > - KAFKA-3507 < > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3507>: > > >> > >> > > Define > > >> > >> > > > standard exceptions for the Authorizer interface > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > Thank you, > > >> > >> > > > Grant > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Jay Kreps < > j...@confluent.io > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Hey Ismael, > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Yeah I think this is a minor cleanliness thing. Since > this > > is > > >> kind > > >> > >> > of a > > >> > >> > > > > power user interface I don't feel strongly either way. > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > My motivation with Scala is just that we've tried to move > > to > > >> > >> having > > >> > >> > the > > >> > >> > > > > public interfaces be Java, and as a group we definitely > > >> struggled > > >> > >> a > > >> > >> > lot > > >> > >> > > > > with understanding and maintaining Scala compatibility in > > the > > >> > >> older > > >> > >> > > > > clients. > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > -Jay > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Ismael Juma < > > >> ism...@juma.me.uk> > > >> > >> > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Hi Jay, > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:48 AM, Jay Kreps < > > j...@confluent.io > > >> > > > >> > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Given that we're breaking compatibility anyway should > > we: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > We are not breaking source compatibility since the new > > >> method > > >> > >> has a > > >> > >> > > > > default > > >> > >> > > > > > implementation. I take it that you mean binary > > >> compatibility? > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > 1. Remove the get prefix on this method and the > > existing > > >> one > > >> > >> > which > > >> > >> > > > > > violate > > >> > >> > > > > > > our own code style guidelines (Oops! Kind of sad we > > went > > >> > >> through > > >> > >> > > the > > >> > >> > > > > > whole > > >> > >> > > > > > > KIP process and no one even flagged this) > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > I did flag this during the discussion and Ashish said > he > > >> would > > >> > >> > change > > >> > >> > > > it > > >> > >> > > > > if > > >> > >> > > > > > other people felt that it should be changed. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > 2. Move the interface out of scala to be a normal > Java > > >> > >> interface > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > This breaks source compatibility but probably what we > > >> should > > >> > >> have > > >> > >> > > > done > > >> > >> > > > > > > originally I suspect. Probably there are few enough > > >> > >> > implementations > > >> > >> > > > of > > >> > >> > > > > > this > > >> > >> > > > > > > that it is better to just rip the bandaid off. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Can you please explain the motivation? It did come up > in > > >> > >> previous > > >> > >> > > > > > discussions that some things like Operation and > > ResourceType > > >> > >> should > > >> > >> > > be > > >> > >> > > > in > > >> > >> > > > > > the clients library, but not Authorizer itself. Are we > > >> saying > > >> > >> that > > >> > >> > > any > > >> > >> > > > > > pluggable interface should be in Java so that users can > > >> > >> implement > > >> > >> > it > > >> > >> > > > > > without including the Scala library? > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Grant, you originally suggested that some things would > > have > > >> to > > >> > >> be > > >> > >> > in > > >> > >> > > > the > > >> > >> > > > > > Java side as well. Can you please elaborate on this? > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Ismael > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > -- > > >> > >> > > > Grant Henke > > >> > >> > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera > > >> > >> > > > gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | > > >> > >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > -- > > >> > >> > Grant Henke > > >> > >> > Software Engineer | Cloudera > > >> > >> > gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | > > >> linkedin.com/in/granthenke > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > > > >> > > Regards, > > >> > > Ashish > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > > > >> > Regards, > > >> > Ashish > > >> > > > > > >-- > > > > > >Regards, > > >Ashish > > > > > -- Regards, Ashish
