Ranger team would prefer option #2. Right now, we have to access some of the nested constants using constructs like Group$.MODULE$, which is not intuitive in Java.
Thanks Bosco On 4/7/16, 4:30 PM, "Ashish Singh" <asi...@cloudera.com> wrote: >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
