Thanks Randall for your thoughts. I have created a replica of the required entities in the draft implementation. If you can take a look at the PR and let me know your thoughts, I will update the KIP to reflect the same
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4931 On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Magesh, I think our last emails cross in mid-stream. > > We definitely want to put the new public interfaces/classes in the API > module, and implementation in the runtime module. Yes, this will affect the > design, since for example we don't want to expose runtime types to the API, > and we want to prevent breaking changes. We don't really want to move the > REST entities if we don't have to, since that may break projects that are > extending the runtime module -- even though the runtime module is not a > public API we still want to _try_ to change things. > > Do you want to try to create a prototype to see what kind of impact and > choices we'll have to make? > > Best regards, > > Randall > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for updating the KIP, Magesh. You've resolved all of my concerns, > > though I have one more: we should specify the package names for all new > > interfaces/classes. > > > > I'm looking forward to more feedback from others. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Randall > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Magesh Nandakumar < > mage...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I have updated the KIP with following changes > >> > >> 1. Expanded the Motivation section > >> 2. Included details about the interface in the public interface > section > >> 3. Modified the config name to rest.extension.classes > >> 4. Modified the ConnectRestExtension to include Configurable instead > of > >> ResourceConfig > >> 5. Modified the "Rest Extension Integration with Connect" in > "Proposed > >> Approach" to include a new Custom implementation for Configurable > >> 6. Provided examples for the Java Service provider mechanism > >> 7. Included a reference implementation in scope > >> > >> Kindly let me know your thoughts on the updates. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Magesh > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Magesh Nandakumar < > mage...@confluent.io > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Randall, > >> > > >> > Thanks for your feedback. I also would like to go with > >> > rest.extension.classes`. > >> > > >> > For exposing Configurable, my original intention was just to expose > that > >> > to the extension because that's all one needs to register JAX RS > >> resources. > >> > The fact that we use Jersey shouldn't even be exposed in the > interface. > >> > Hence it doesn't affect the public API by any means. > >> > > >> > I will update the KIP and let everyone know. > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > Magesh > >> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Magesh Nandakumar < > >> mage...@confluent.io > >> >> > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Hi Randall, > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks a lot for your feedback. > >> >> > > >> >> > I will update the KIP to reflect your comments in (1), (2), (7) and > >> (8). > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Looking forward to these. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > For comment # (3) , while it would be great to automatically > >> configure > >> >> the > >> >> > Rest Extensions, I would prefer that to be specified explicitly. > Lets > >> >> > assume a connector archive includes a implementation for the > >> >> RestExtension > >> >> > to do authentication using some header. We don't want this to be > >> >> > automatically included. Having said that I think that the config > key > >> >> name > >> >> > should probably be changed to something like "rest.extension" or > >> >> > "rest.extension.class". > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> That's a good point. I do like `rest.extension.class` (or > `..classes`?) > >> >> much more than `rest.plugins`. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > For the comment regarding the resource loading into jersey, I have > >> the > >> >> > following proposal > >> >> > > >> >> > Create an implementation of Configurable( > >> >> > https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/ws/rs/core/Config > >> urable.html > >> >> ) > >> >> > that delegates to ResourceConfig. In the ConnectRestExtension, we > >> would > >> >> > expose only Configurable which is sufficient enough to register new > >> >> > resources. In the new implementation, we will check if the resource > >> is > >> >> > already registered using ResourceConfig.isRegistered() method and > >> log a > >> >> > warning if the resource is already registered. This will make it a > >> >> > deterministic behavior and avoid any potential re-registrations. > Let > >> me > >> >> > know your thoughts on these. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> This sounds a good idea. Is it as flexible as the current proposal? > If > >> >> not, > >> >> then I'd love to see how this affects the public APIs. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks > >> >> > Magesh > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > Very nice proposal, Magesh. I like the approach and the new > >> concepts > >> >> and > >> >> > > interfaces, but I do have a few comments/suggestions about some > >> >> specific > >> >> > > details: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 1. In the "Motivation" section, perhaps it makes sense to > >> briefly > >> >> > > describe one or two somewhat concrete examples of how this is > >> >> useful. > >> >> > > 2. Maybe in the "Public Interfaces" section you could briefly > >> >> describe > >> >> > > each of the interfaces, what they represent, and which are > >> >> implemented > >> >> > > by > >> >> > > the framework vs implemented by an extension. I think it'd > help > >> to > >> >> > > explain > >> >> > > that only the `ConnectRestPlugin` needs to be implemented, and > >> the > >> >> > rest > >> >> > > will be provided by the framework. I know the next section > goes > >> >> into > >> >> > it > >> >> > > a > >> >> > > bit, but it'd be useful in this section when first talking > about > >> >> the > >> >> > new > >> >> > > interfaces. > >> >> > > 3. Also in the "Public Interfaces" section: I don't think we > >> should > >> >> > > introduce a "rest.plugins" configuration property. Instead, > can > >> we > >> >> not > >> >> > > just > >> >> > > instantiate and call all of the ConnectRestPlugins that we > find > >> on > >> >> the > >> >> > > plugin path? Besides, it seems too close to the `plugin.path` > >> >> > > configuration > >> >> > > property. > >> >> > > 4. Why would the implementation register Connect resources > >> *after* > >> >> the > >> >> > > plugins, if Jersey currently registers only the first one? The > >> >> > "Rejected > >> >> > > Alternatives" mentions why, but this section should be > explicit > >> >> about > >> >> > > why. > >> >> > > For example, "The plugin's would be registered in the > >> >> > > RestServer.start(Herder herder) method before registering the > >> >> default > >> >> > > Connect resources, which ensures that plugins cannot remove > >> Connect > >> >> > > resources." > >> >> > > 5. "Hence, it is recommended that the plugins don't > re-register > >> the > >> >> > > default Connect Resources. This could potentially lead to > >> >> unexpected > >> >> > > errors." First, we should not say "recommended" and should > just > >> say > >> >> > > plugins > >> >> > > should not register any resources that conflict with the > >> built-in > >> >> > > Connect > >> >> > > resources. Second, if the worker does find conflicts, can we > >> just > >> >> > remove > >> >> > > them before adding the built-in Connect resources? > >> >> > > 6. Is it possible for implementations to check whether > resources > >> >> > already > >> >> > > exist before registering their own? If so, we should recommend > >> that > >> >> > > implementations do this and log any problems. > >> >> > > 7. We should be explicit that the "Service Provider" is Java's > >> >> Service > >> >> > > Provider API. We also need to be explicit that an > implementation > >> >> must > >> >> > > provide a `META-INF/services/org.apache.kafka.connect. > >> >> > > ConnectRestPlugin` > >> >> > > file (or whatever the package name of the `ConnectRestPlugin` > >> will > >> >> be) > >> >> > > with > >> >> > > the fully-qualified name of the implementation class(es). > >> >> > > 8. The example should include the META-INF file required by > the > >> >> > Service > >> >> > > Provider API. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Again, overall this is really great! > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Best regards, > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Randall > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:14 AM, Magesh Nandakumar < > >> >> > mage...@confluent.io> > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Hi, > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > We have posted KIP-285: Connect Rest Extension Plugin to add > the > >> >> > ability > >> >> > > to > >> >> > > > provide Rest Extensions to Connect Rest API. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > >> >> > > > 285%3A+Connect+Rest+Extension+Plugin > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Please take a look. Your feedback is appreciated. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Thanks, > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Magesh > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
