Since everything is whitespace delimited anyway, I don't think we should worry about the compatibility issue. We don't guarantee this unstructured output format. I think it is fine to say that any parser that doesn't do something straightforward and reliable like splitting the line by whitespace then checking the : prefixed value to determine if it is usable is ok to break.
Long term, we should really just get more structured output formats for the command line tools, a la https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-313. -Ewen On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Right, the reason for inserting it before the configs is that > MarkedForDeletion is a fixed length field while configs is a variable > length field. The fact that MarkedForDeletion is optional and typically not > set means that it's also justifiable to place it after the configs. So, I'm > OK either way. > > Ismael > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > I had the same thinking as James. Also we plan to only add the > > MarkedForDeletion field for topics pending deletion as the output of > > --describe is already pretty dense and most topics are never pending > > deletion. > > > > The only reason I came up to insert it in the middle is if Configs is > > long, then MarkedForDeletion could be pushed on a new line/off-screen. > > Am I missing something ? > > > > That said, I don't have a strong opinion about it and if most people > > prefer it the other way around I'll be happy to update the KIP. > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:25 AM, James Cheng <wushuja...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Having "MarkedForDeletion" before "Configs" may break anyone who is > > parsing this output, since they may be expecting the 4th string to be > > "Configs". > > > > > > I know that the Compatibility section already says that people parsing > > this may have to adjust their parsing logic, so maybe that covers my > > concern already. But inserting the new MarkedForDeletion word into the > > middle of the string seems like it'll break parsing more than just > adding a > > new value at the end. > > > > > > I'm fine either way, though. > > > > > > -James > > > > > >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Vahid S Hashemian < > > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> Thanks for the KIP Mickael. > > >> Looks good. I also prefer 'MarkedForDeletion' before 'Configs'. > > >> > > >> --Vahid > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> From: Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> > > >> To: dev@kafka.apache.org > > >> Date: 04/25/2017 04:15 AM > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-137: Enhance TopicCommand --describe > > to > > >> show topics marked for deletion > > >> Sent by: isma...@gmail.com > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks for the KIP. Would it make sense for MarkedForDeletion to be > > before > > >> `Configs`? I can see arguments both ways, so I was wondering what your > > >> thoughts were? > > >> > > >> Ismael > > >> > > >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Mickael Maison < > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi all, > > >>> > > >>> We created KIP-137: Enhance TopicCommand --describe to show topics > > >>> marked for deletion > > >>> > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > >>> > > >> 137%3A+Enhance+TopicCommand+--describe+to+show+topics+marked > > +for+deletion > > >>> > > >>> Please help review the KIP. You feedback is appreciated! > > >>> > > >>> Thanks > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
