I liked abstracting the metadata approach as well. It also helps to evolve
in the future.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Michael Noll <mich...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Like Damian I'd also favor a proper type (KafkaStreamsMetadata) rather than
> a Map-based construct.
>
> -Michael
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One more thing on the above, the methods on KafkaStreams should be
> changed
> > to something like:
> >
> > Collection<KafkaStreamsMetadata> allMetadata()
> >
> > Collection<KafkaStreamsMetadata> allMetadataForStore(final String
> > storeName)
> >
> > KafkaStreamsMetadata metadataWithKey(final String storeName,
> > final K key,
> > final Serializer<K>
> > keySerializer)
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Damian
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 at 11:14 Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I agree with point 1. application.server is a better name for the
> config
> > > (we'll change this). However, on point 2 I think we should stick mostly
> > > with what we already have. I've tried both ways of doing this when
> > working
> > > on the JIRA and building examples and I find the current approach more
> > > intuitive and easier to use than the Map based approach.
> > > However, there is probably a naming issue. We should rename
> > > KafkaStreamsInstance to KafkaStreamsMetadata. This Class is very
> simple,
> > > but provides all the information a developer needs to be able to find
> the
> > > instance(s) of a Streams application that a particular store is running
> > on,
> > > i.e.,
> > >
> > > public class KafkStreamsMetadata {
> > > private final HostInfo hostInfo;
> > > private final Set<String> stateStoreNames;
> > > private final Set<TopicPartition> topicPartitions;
> > >
> > >
> > > So using the API to route to a new host is fairly simple, particularly
> in
> > > the case when you want to find the host for a particular key, i.e.,
> > >
> > > final KafkaStreams kafkaStreams = createKafkaStreams();
> > > final KafkaStreamsMetadata streamsMetadata =
> > kafkaStreams.instanceWithKey("word-count", "hello",
> > Serdes.String().serializer());
> > > http.get("http://"; + streamsMetadata.host() + ":" +
> > streamsMetadata.port() + "/get/word-count/hello");
> > >
> > >
> > > And if you want to do a scatter gather approach:
> > >
> > > final KafkaStreams kafkaStreams = createKafkaStreams();
> > > final Collection<KafkaStreamsMetadata> kafkaStreamsMetadatas =
> > kafkaStreams.allInstancesWithStore("word-count");
> > > for (KafkaStreamsMetadata streamsMetadata : kafkaStreamsMetadatas) {
> > > http.get("http://"; + streamsMetadata.host() + ":" +
> > streamsMetadata.port() + "/get/word-count/hello");
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > And if you iterated over all instances:
> > >
> > > final KafkaStreams kafkaStreams = createKafkaStreams();
> > > final Collection<KafkaStreamsMetadata> kafkaStreamsMetadatas =
> > kafkaStreams.allInstances();
> > > for (KafkaStreamsMetadata streamsMetadata : kafkaStreamsMetadatas) {
> > > if (streamsMetadata.stateStoreNames().contains("word-count")) {
> > > http.get("http://"; + streamsMetadata.host() + ":" +
> > streamsMetadata.port() + "/get/word-count/hello");
> > > ...
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > If we were to change this to use Map<HostInfo, Set<TaskMetadata>> for
> the
> > > most part users would need to iterate over the entry or key set.
> > Examples:
> > >
> > > The finding an instance by key is a little odd:
> > >
> > > final KafkaStreams kafkaStreams = createKafkaStreams();
> > > final Map<HostInfo, Set<TaskMetadata>> streamsMetadata =
> > kafkaStreams.instanceWithKey("word-count","hello",
> > Serdes.String().serializer());
> > > // this is a bit odd as i only expect one:
> > > for (HostInfo hostInfo : streamsMetadata.keySet()) {
> > > http.get("http://"; + streamsMetadata.host() + ":" +
> > streamsMetadata.port() + "/get/word-count/hello");
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > The scatter/gather by store is fairly similar to the previous example:
> > >
> > > final KafkaStreams kafkaStreams = createKafkaStreams();
> > > final Map<HostInfo, Set<TaskMetadata>> streamsMetadata =
> > kafkaStreams.allInstancesWithStore("word-count");
> > > for(HostInfo hostInfo : streamsMetadata.keySet()) {
> > > http.get("http://"; + hostInfo.host() + ":" + hostInfo.port() +
> > "/get/word-count/hello");
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > And iterating over all instances:
> > >
> > > final Map<HostInfo, Set<TaskMetadata>> streamsMetadata =
> > kafkaStreams.allInstances();
> > > for (Map.Entry<HostInfo, Set<TaskMetadata>> entry :
> > streamsMetadata.entrySet()) {
> > > for (TaskMetadata taskMetadata : entry.getValue()) {
> > > if (taskMetadata.stateStoreNames().contains("word-count")) {
> > > http.get("http://"; + streamsMetadata.host() + ":" +
> > streamsMetadata.port() + "/get/word-count/hello");
> > > ...
> > > }
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > IMO - having a class we return is the better approach as it nicely
> wraps
> > > the related things, i.e, host:port, store names, topic partitions into
> an
> > > Object that is easy to use. Further we could add some behaviour to this
> > > class if we felt it necessary, i.e, hasStore(storeName) etc.
> > >
> > > Anyway, i'm interested in your thoughts.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Damian
> > >
> > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 at 13:47 Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> 1. Re StreamsConfig.USER_ENDPOINT_CONFIG:
> > >>
> > >> I agree with Neha that Kafka Streams can provide the bare minimum APIs
> > >> just
> > >> for host/port, and user's implemented layer can provide URL / proxy
> > >> address
> > >> they want to build on top of it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 2. Re Improving KafkaStreamsInstance interface:
> > >>
> > >> Users are indeed aware of "TaskId" class which is not part of internal
> > >> packages and is exposed in PartitionGrouper interface that can be
> > >> instantiated by the users, which is assigned with input topic
> > partitions.
> > >> So we can probably change the APIs as:
> > >>
> > >> Map<HostState, Set<TaskMetadata>> KafkaStreams.getAllTasks() where
> > >> TaskMetadata has fields such as taskId, list of assigned partitions,
> > list
> > >> of state store names; and HostState can include hostname / port. The
> > port
> > >> is the listening port of a user-defined listener that users provide to
> > >> listen for queries (e.g., using REST APIs).
> > >>
> > >> Map<HostState, Set<TaskMetadata>>
> KafkaStreams.getTasksWithStore(String
> > /*
> > >> storeName */) would return only the hosts and their assigned tasks if
> at
> > >> least one of the tasks include the given store name.
> > >>
> > >> Map<HostState, Set<TaskMetadata>>
> > KafkaStreams.getTaskWithStoreAndKey(Key
> > >> k, String /* storeName */, StreamPartitioner partitioner) would return
> > >> only
> > >> the host and their assigned task if the store with the store name has
> a
> > >> particular key, according to the partitioner behavior.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Guozhang
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Neha Narkhede <n...@confluent.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Few thoughts that became apparent after observing example code of
> what
> > >> an
> > >> > application architecture and code might look like with these
> changes.
> > >> > Apologize for the late realization hence.
> > >> >
> > >> > 1. "user.endpoint" will be very differently defined for respective
> > >> > applications. I don't think Kafka Streams should generalize to
> accept
> > >> any
> > >> > connection URL as we expect to only expose metadata expressed as
> > >> HostInfo
> > >> > (which is defined by host & port) and hence need to interpret the
> > >> > "user.endpoint" as host & port. Applications will have their own
> > >> endpoint
> > >> > configs that will take many forms and they will be responsible for
> > >> parsing
> > >> > out host and port and configuring Kafka Streams accordingly.
> > >> >
> > >> > If we are in fact limiting to host and port, I wonder if we should
> > >> change
> > >> > the name of "user.endpoint" into something more specific. We have
> > >> clients
> > >> > expose host/port pairs as "bootstrap.servers". Should this be
> > >> > "application.server"?
> > >> >
> > >> > 2. I don't think we should expose another abstraction called
> > >> > KafkaStreamsInstance to the user. This is related to the discussion
> of
> > >> the
> > >> > right abstraction that we want to expose to an application. The
> > >> abstraction
> > >> > discussion itself should probably be part of the KIP itself, let me
> > >> give a
> > >> > quick summary of my thoughts here:
> > >> > 1. The person implementing an application using Queryable State has
> > >> likely
> > >> > already made some choices for the service layer–a REST framework,
> > >> Thrift,
> > >> > or whatever. We don't really want to add another RPC framework to
> this
> > >> mix,
> > >> > nor do we want to try to make Kafka's RPC mechanism general purpose.
> > >> > 2. Likewise, it should be clear that the API you want to expose to
> the
> > >> > front-end/client service is not necessarily the API you'd need
> > >> internally
> > >> > as there may be additional filtering/processing in the router.
> > >> >
> > >> > Given these constraints, what we prefer to add is a fairly low-level
> > >> > "toolbox" that would let you do anything you want, but requires to
> > route
> > >> > and perform any aggregation or processing yourself. This pattern is
> > >> > not recommended for all kinds of services/apps, but there are
> > >> definitely a
> > >> > category of things where it is a big win and other advanced
> > applications
> > >> > are out-of-scope.
> > >> >
> > >> > The APIs we expose should take the following things into
> > consideration:
> > >> > 1. Make it clear to the user that they will do the routing,
> > aggregation,
> > >> > processing themselves. So the bare minimum that we want to expose is
> > >> store
> > >> > and partition metadata per application server identified by the host
> > and
> > >> > port.
> > >> > 2. Ensure that the API exposes abstractions that are known to the
> user
> > >> or
> > >> > are intuitive to the user.
> > >> > 3. Avoid exposing internal objects or implementation details to the
> > >> user.
> > >> >
> > >> > So tying all this into answering the question of what we should
> expose
> > >> > through the APIs -
> > >> >
> > >> > In Kafka Streams, the user is aware of the concept of tasks and
> > >> partitions
> > >> > since the application scales with the number of partitions and tasks
> > are
> > >> > the construct for logical parallelism. The user is also aware of the
> > >> > concept of state stores though until now they were not user
> > accessible.
> > >> > With Queryable State, the bare minimum abstractions that we need to
> > >> expose
> > >> > are state stores and the location of state store partitions.
> > >> >
> > >> > For exposing the state stores, the getStore() APIs look good but I
> > think
> > >> > for locating the state store partitions, we should go back to the
> > >> original
> > >> > proposal of simply exposing some sort of getPartitionMetadata() that
> > >> > returns a PartitionMetadata or TaskMetadata object keyed by
> HostInfo.
> > >> >
> > >> > The application will convert the HostInfo (host and port) into some
> > >> > connection URL to talk to the other app instances via its own RPC
> > >> mechanism
> > >> > depending on whether it needs to scatter-gather or just query. The
> > >> > application will know how a key maps to a partition and through
> > >> > PartitionMetadata it will know how to locate the server that hosts
> the
> > >> > store that has the partition hosting that key.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Michael Noll <mich...@confluent.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Addendum in case my previous email wasn't clear:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > So for any given instance of a streams application there will
> > never
> > >> be
> > >> > > both a v1 and v2 alive at the same time
> > >> > >
> > >> > > That's right. But the current live instance will be able to tell
> > >> other
> > >> > > instances, via its endpoint setting, whether it wants to be
> > contacted
> > >> at
> > >> > v1
> > >> > > or at v2. The other instances can't guess that. Think: if an
> older
> > >> > > instance would manually compose the "rest" of an endpoint URI,
> > having
> > >> > only
> > >> > > the host and port from the endpoint setting, it might not know
> that
> > >> the
> > >> > new
> > >> > > instances have a different endpoint suffix, for example).
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Michael Noll <
> mich...@confluent.io>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Damian,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > about the rolling upgrade comment: An instance A will contact
> > >> another
> > >> > > > instance B by the latter's endpoint, right? So if A has no
> > further
> > >> > > > information available than B's host and port, then how should
> > >> instance
> > >> > A
> > >> > > > know whether it should call B at /v1/ or at /v2/? I agree that
> my
> > >> > > > suggestion isn't foolproof, but it is afaict better than the
> > >> host:port
> > >> > > > approach.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Damian Guy <
> damian....@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> Michael - i'm ok with changing it to a string. Any one else
> have
> > a
> > >> > > strong
> > >> > > >> opinion on this?
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> FWIW - i don't think it will work fine as is during the rolling
> > >> > upgrade
> > >> > > >> scenario as the service that is listening on the port needs to
> be
> > >> > > embedded
> > >> > > >> within each instance. So for any given instance of a streams
> > >> > application
> > >> > > >> there will never be both a v1 and v2 alive at the same time
> > >> (unless of
> > >> > > >> course the process didn't shutdown properly, but then you have
> > >> another
> > >> > > >> problem...).
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 at 15:26 Michael Noll <mich...@confluent.io
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> > I have one further comment about
> > >> > `StreamsConfig.USER_ENDPOINT_CONFIG`.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > I think we should consider to not restricting the value of
> this
> > >> > > setting
> > >> > > >> to
> > >> > > >> > only `host:port` pairs. By design, this setting is capturing
> > >> > > >> user-driven
> > >> > > >> > metadata to define an endpoint, so why restrict the
> creativity
> > or
> > >> > > >> > flexibility of our users? I can imagine, for example, that
> > users
> > >> > > would
> > >> > > >> > like to set values such as `https://host:port/api/rest/v1/`
> in
> > >> this
> > >> > > >> field
> > >> > > >> > (e.g. being able to distinguish between `.../v1/` and
> `.../v2/`
> > >> may
> > >> > > >> help in
> > >> > > >> > scenarios such as rolling upgrades, where, during the
> upgrade,
> > >> older
> > >> > > >> > instances may need to coexist with newer instances).
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > That said, I don't have a strong opinion here.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > -Michael
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Matthias J. Sax <
> > >> > > matth...@confluent.io>
> > >> > > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > > +1
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > On 07/08/2016 11:03 AM, Eno Thereska wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > > +1 (non-binding)
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > > >> On 7 Jul 2016, at 18:31, Sriram Subramanian <
> > >> r...@confluent.io>
> > >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> > > >> +1
> > >> > > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Henry Cai
> > >> > > >> <h...@pinterest.com.invalid
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> > > >>> +1
> > >> > > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Michael Noll <
> > >> > > >> mich...@confluent.io>
> > >> > > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> +1 (non-binding)
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Damian Guy <
> > >> > > >> damian....@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >> > > >>> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>> Thanks Henry - we've updated the KIP with an example
> > and
> > >> the
> > >> > > new
> > >> > > >> > > config
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>> parameter required. FWIW the user doesn't register a
> > >> > listener,
> > >> > > >> they
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> provide
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>> a host:port in config. It is expected they will
> start a
> > >> > > service
> > >> > > >> > > running
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> on
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>> that host:port that they can use to connect to the
> > >> running
> > >> > > >> > > KafkaStreams
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>> Instance.
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>> Damian
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 at 06:06 Henry Cai
> > >> > > >> <h...@pinterest.com.invalid>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>> It wasn't quite clear to me how the user program
> > >> interacts
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > >> > the
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>> discovery API, especially on the user supplied
> > listener
> > >> > part,
> > >> > > >> how
> > >> > > >> > > >>> does
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>> the
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>> user program supply that listener to KafkaStreams
> and
> > >> how
> > >> > > does
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>> KafkaStreams
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>> know which port the user listener is running, maybe
> a
> > >> more
> > >> > > >> > complete
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>> end-to-end example including the steps on
> registering
> > >> the
> > >> > > user
> > >> > > >> > > >>> listener
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>> and
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>> whether the user listener needs to be involved with
> > task
> > >> > > >> > > >>> reassignment.
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > >> > > >> wangg...@gmail.com
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> ＋1
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Damian Guy <
> > >> > > >> > damian....@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> I'd like to initiate the voting process for KIP-67
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> <
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-67%3A+Queryable+state+for+Kafka+Streams
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> KAFKA-3909 <
> > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3909
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > is
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> the
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>> top
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> level JIRA for this effort.
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Initial PRs for Step 1 of the process are:
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Expose State Store Names <
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1526>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>> and
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Query Local State Stores <
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1565>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> Damian
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> --
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> --
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> Best regards,
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> Michael Noll
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> *Michael G. Noll | Product Manager | Confluent | +1
> > >> > > >> > > 650.453.5860Download
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> Apache Kafka and Confluent Platform:
> > >> > www.confluent.io/download
> > >> > > >> > > >>>> <http://www.confluent.io/download>*
> > >> > > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > --
> > >> > > >> > Best regards,
> > >> > > >> > Michael Noll
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > *Michael G. Noll | Product Manager | Confluent | +1
> > >> > > 650.453.5860Download
> > >> > > >> > Apache Kafka and Confluent Platform:
> www.confluent.io/download
> > >> > > >> > <http://www.confluent.io/download>*
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > Michael Noll
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > *Michael G. Noll | Product Manager | Confluent | +1
> 650.453.5860
> > >> > > > <%2B1%20650.453.5860>Download Apache Kafka and Confluent
> Platform:
> > >> > > > www.confluent.io/download <http://www.confluent.io/download>*
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Best regards,
> > >> > > Michael Noll
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > *Michael G. Noll | Product Manager | Confluent | +1
> > >> 650.453.5860Download
> > >> > > Apache Kafka and Confluent Platform: www.confluent.io/download
> > >> > > <http://www.confluent.io/download>*
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Neha
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> -- Guozhang
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michael Noll
>
>
>
> *Michael G. Noll | Product Manager | Confluent | +1 650.453.5860Download
> Apache Kafka and Confluent Platform: www.confluent.io/download
> <http://www.confluent.io/download>*
>
