Hi Colin,
They do share the same namespace. We have a "protocol type" field in the
JoinGroup request to make sure that all members are of the same kind. Very
roughly what I was thinking is something like this. First we introduce an
interface for deserialization:
interface GroupMetadataDeserializer<Metadata, Assignment> {
String protocolType();
Metadata desrializeMetadata(ByteBuffer);
Assignment deserializeAssignment(ByteBuffer);
}
Then we add some kind of generic container:
class MemberMetadata<Metadata, Assignment> {
Metadata metadata;
Assignment assignment;
}
Then we have two APIs: one generic and one specific to consumer groups:
<M, A> Map<String, MemberMetadata<M,A>> describeGroup(String groupId,
GroupMetadataDeserializer<M, A> deserializer);
Map<String, ConsumerGroupMetadata> describeConsumerGroup(String groupId);
(This is just a sketch, so obviously we can change them to use futures or
to batch or whatever.)
I think it would be fine to not provide a connect-specific API since this
usage will probably be limited to Connect itself.
Thanks,
Jason
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sorry... this is probably a silly question, but do Kafka Connect groups
> share a namespace with consumer groups? If we had a separate API for
> Kafka Connect groups vs. Consumer groups, would that make sense? Or
> should we unify them?
>
> best,
> Colin
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017, at 16:11, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> > Hi Jorge,
> >
> > Kafka group management is actually more general than consumer groups
> > (e.g.
> > there are kafka connect groups). If we are adding these APIs, I would
> > suggest we consider the more general protocol and how to expose
> > group-protocol-specific metadata. For example, it might be reasonable to
> > have both an API to access to the low-level bytes as well as some
> > higher-level convenience APIs for accessing consumer groups.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jason
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Jorge,
> > >
> > > is there any update regarding this KIP?
> > >
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> > >
> > > On 11/17/17 9:14 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > Hello Jorge,
> > > >
> > > > I made a pass over the wiki, and here are a few comments:
> > > >
> > > > 1. First, regarding to Tom's comment #2 above, I think if we are only
> > > going
> > > > to include the String groupId. Then it is Okay to keep as a String
> than
> > > > using a new wrapper class. However, I think we could include the
> > > > protocol_type returned from the ListGroupsResponse along with the
> > > groupId.
> > > > This is a very useful information to tell which consumer groups are
> from
> > > > Connect, which ones are from Streams, which ones are user-customized
> etc.
> > > > With this, it is reasonable to keep a wrapper class.
> > > >
> > > > 2. In ConsumerDescription, could we also add the state, protocol_type
> > > > (these two are form DescribeGroupResponse), and the Node coordinator
> > > (this
> > > > may be returned from the AdminClient itself) as well? This is also
> for
> > > > information consistency with the old client (note that protocol_type
> was
> > > > called assignment_strategy there).
> > > >
> > > > 3. With 1) / 2) above, maybe we can rename "ConsumerGroupListing" to
> > > > "ConsumerGroupSummary" and make "ConsumerGroupDescription" an
> extended
> > > > class of the former with the additional fields?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Guozhang
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya <
> > > > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Tom,
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. You're right. I've updated the KIP accordingly.
> > > >> 2. Yes, I have add it to keep consistency, but I'd like to know what
> > > others
> > > >> think about this too.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >> Jorge.
> > > >>
> > > >> El mar., 7 nov. 2017 a las 9:29, Tom Bentley (<
> t.j.bent...@gmail.com>)
> > > >> escribió:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi again Jorge,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> A couple of minor points:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 1. ConsumerGroupDescription has the member `name`, but everywhere
> else
> > > >> that
> > > >>> I've seen the term "group id" is used, so perhaps calling it "id"
> or
> > > >>> "groupId" would be more consistent.
> > > >>> 2. I think you've added ConsumerGroupListing for consistency with
> > > >>> TopicListing. For topics it makes sense because at well as the name
> > > there
> > > >>> is whether the topic is internal. For consumer groups, though
> there is
> > > >> just
> > > >>> the name and having a separate ConsumerGroupListing seems like it
> > > doesn't
> > > >>> add very much, and would mostly get in the way when using the API.
> I
> > > >> would
> > > >>> be interested in what others thought about this.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Cheers,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Tom
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 6 November 2017 at 22:16, Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya <
> > > >>> quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Thanks for the feedback!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> @Ted Yu: Links added.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> KIP updated. Changes:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> * `#listConsumerGroups(ListConsumerGroupsOptions options)` added
> to
> > > >> the
> > > >>>> API.
> > > >>>> * `DescribeConsumerGroupResult` and `ConsumerGroupDescription`
> classes
> > > >>>> described.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>> Jorge.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> El lun., 6 nov. 2017 a las 20:28, Guozhang Wang (<
> wangg...@gmail.com
> > > >)
> > > >>>> escribió:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Hi Matthias,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> You meant "list groups" I think?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Guozhang
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Matthias J. Sax <
> > > >>> matth...@confluent.io>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The main goal of this KIP is to enable decoupling
> StreamsResetter
> > > >>> from
> > > >>>>>> core module. For this case (ie, using AdminClient within
> > > >>>>>> StreamsResetter) we get the group.id from the user as command
> line
> > > >>>>>> argument. Thus, I think the KIP is useful without "describe
> group"
> > > >>>>>> command to.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I am happy to include "describe group" command in the KIP. Just
> > > >> want
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>> point out, that there is no reason to insist on it IMHO.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> -Matthias
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On 11/6/17 7:06 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> A quick question: I think we do not yet have the `list consumer
> > > >>>> groups`
> > > >>>>>>> func as in the old AdminClient. Without this `describe group`
> > > >> given
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> group id would not be very useful. Could you include this as
> well
> > > >>> in
> > > >>>>> your
> > > >>>>>>> KIP? More specifically, you can look at
> > > >> kafka.admin.AdminClientfor
> > > >>>> more
> > > >>>>>>> details on the APIs.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Please fill out Discussion thread and JIRA fields.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Tom Bentley <
> > > >>> t.j.bent...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jorge,
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP. A few initial comments:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> 1. The AdminClient doesn't have any API like
> > > >>> `listConsumerGroups()`
> > > >>>>>>>>> currently, so in general how does a client know the group ids
> > > >> it
> > > >>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>> interested in?
> > > >>>>>>>>> 2. Could you fill in the API of DescribeConsumerGroupResult,
> > > >> just
> > > >>>> so
> > > >>>>>>>>> everyone knows exactly what being proposed.
> > > >>>>>>>>> 3. Can you describe the ConsumerGroupDescription class?
> > > >>>>>>>>> 4. Probably worth mentioning that this will use
> > > >>>>>>>>> DescribeGroupsRequest/Response, and also enumerating the
> error
> > > >>>> codes
> > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>> can return (or, equivalently, enumerate the exceptions throw
> > > >> from
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>> futures obtained from the DescribeConsumerGroupResult).
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Tom
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On 6 November 2017 at 08:19, Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya <
> > > >>>>>>>>> quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I would like to start a discussion on KIP-222 [1] based on
> > > >> issue
> > > >>>>> [2].
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to feedback.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > > >>>>>>>>> action?pageId=74686265
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6058
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Jorge.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
