Hi Colin,
> We are going to need to create a new version of AlterConfigsRequest to add
> the "incremental" boolean. So while we're doing that, maybe we can change
> the type to NULLABLE_STRING.
I was just talking to a colleague yesterday and we came to the
conclusion that we should keep the boolean flag only on the client
side (as you may have suggested earlier?) and not make part of the
protocol as it might lead to a very complicated API on the long term.
Also we would keep the server side API simpler. Instead of the
protocol change we could just simply have the boolean flag in
AlterConfigOptions and the AdminClient should do the get-merge-set
logic which corresponds to the behavior of the current ConfigCommand.
That way we won't need to change the protocol for now but still have
both functionality. What do you think?
> Hmm. Not sure I follow. KIP-133 doesn't use the empty string or "<default>"
> to indicate defaults, does it?
No it doesn't. It was just my early idea to indicate "delete" on the
protocol level. (We are using <default> for denoting the default
client id or user in zookeeper.) Rajini was referring that we
shouldn't expose this to the protocol level but instead denote delete
with an empty string.
> This comes from DescribeConfigsResponse.
> Unless I'm missing something, I think your suggestion to not expose
> "<default>" is already implemented?
In some way, yes. Although this one is used in describe and not in
alter. For alter I don't think we'd need my early "<default>" idea.
>> And we use STRING rather than NULLABLE_STRING in describe configs etc. So we
>> should probably do the same for quotas."
>
> I think nearly all responses treat ERROR_MESSAGE as a nullable string.
> CommonFields#ERROR_MESSAGE, which is used by most of them, is a nullable
> string. It's DescribeConfigsResponse that is the black sheep here.
>
> > public static final Field.NullableStr ERROR_MESSAGE = new
> Field.NullableStr("error_message", "Response error message");
Looking at DescribeConfigsResponse (and AlterConfigsResponse) they use
nullable_string in the code. KIP-133 states otherwise though. So in
this case it's not a problem luckily.
> What about writing a small script that just handles setting up SCRAM
> credentials? It would probably be easier to maintain than the old config
> command. Otherwise we have to explain when each tool should be used, which
> will be confusing to users.
I'd like that, yes :).
Cheers,
Viktor
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2018, at 05:49, Viktor Somogyi wrote:
>> Hi Colin,
>>
>> > Rather than breaking compatibility, we should simply add a new
>> > "incremental" boolean to AlterConfigsOptions. Callers can set this
>> > boolean to true when they want the update to be incremental. It should
>> > default to false so that old code continues to work.
>>
>> Agreed, let's do it this way.
>>
>> > Hmm. I don't think AlterOperation is necessary. If the user wants to
>> > delete a configuration key named "foo", they can create a ConfigEntry with
>> > name = "foo", value = null.
>>
>> AlterConfig's config type currently is string, so the only possibility
>> is to use an empty string as changing the type to nullable_string
>> could be breaking if the client code doesn't expect -1 as the string
>> size. In the discussion thread earlier we had a conversation about
>> this with Rajini, let me paste it here (so it gives some context). At
>> that point I had the text "<default>" for this functionality:
>
> Hi Viktor,
>
> We are going to need to create a new version of AlterConfigsRequest to add
> the "incremental" boolean. So while we're doing that, maybe we can change
> the type to NULLABLE_STRING.
>
>> "4. We use "<default>" internally to store default quotas and other
>> defaults. But I don't think we should externalise that string. We use empty
>> string elsewhere for indicating default, we can do the same here.
>
> Hmm. Not sure I follow. KIP-133 doesn't use the empty string or "<default>"
> to indicate defaults, does it?
>
> There is a ConfigEntry class:
>
> > @InterfaceStability.Evolving
> > public class ConfigEntry {
> >
> > private final String name;
> > private final String value;
> > private final ConfigSource source;
> > private final boolean isSensitive;
> > private final boolean isReadOnly;
> > private final List<ConfigSynonym> synonyms;
>
> and the ConfigSource enum indicates where the config came from:
>
> > /**
> > * Source of configuration entries.
> > */
> > public enum ConfigSource {
> > DYNAMIC_TOPIC_CONFIG, // dynamic topic config that is
> configured for a specific topic
> > DYNAMIC_BROKER_CONFIG, // dynamic broker config that is
> configured for a specific broker
> > DYNAMIC_DEFAULT_BROKER_CONFIG, // dynamic broker config that is
> configured as default for all brokers in the cluster
> > STATIC_BROKER_CONFIG, // static broker config provided
> as broker properties at start up (e.g. server.properties file)
> > DEFAULT_CONFIG, // built-in default configuration
> for configs that have a default value
> > UNKNOWN // source unknown e.g. in the
> ConfigEntry used for alter requests where source is not set
> > }
>
> This comes from DescribeConfigsResponse.
> Unless I'm missing something, I think your suggestion to not expose
> "<default>" is already implemented?
>
>> And we use STRING rather than NULLABLE_STRING in describe configs etc. So we
>> should probably do the same for quotas."
>
> I think nearly all responses treat ERROR_MESSAGE as a nullable string.
> CommonFields#ERROR_MESSAGE, which is used by most of them, is a nullable
> string. It's DescribeConfigsResponse that is the black sheep here.
>
> > public static final Field.NullableStr ERROR_MESSAGE = new
> Field.NullableStr("error_message", "Response error message");
>
>>
>> > Yeah, this might be an excessive maintenance burden. Maybe we should get
>> > rid of the old zookeeper-based code, and just move towards having only a
>> > KIP-248-based tool. It's a breaking change, but it's clear to users that
>> > it's occurring, and what the fix is (specifying --bootstrap-server instead
>> > of --zookeeper).
>>
>> Earlier Rajini raised a concern that direct zookeeper interaction is
>> required to add the SCRAM credentials which will be used for
>> validation if inter-broker communication uses this auth method. This
>> is currently done by the ConfigCommand. Therefore we can't completely
>> get rid of it yet either.
>>
>> In my opinion though on a longer term (and this is now a bit
>> off-topic) Kafka shouldn't use Zookeeper as a credentials store, just
>> provide an interface, so 3rd party authentication stores could be
>> implemented. Then similarly to the authorizer we could have Zookeeper
>> as a default though and a client that manages SCRAM credentials in ZK.
>> From this perspective I'd leave the the command there but put a
>> warning that the tool is deprecated and should only be used for
>> setting up SCRAM credentials.
>> What do you think?
>
> What about writing a small script that just handles setting up SCRAM
> credentials? It would probably be easier to maintain than the old config
> command. Otherwise we have to explain when each tool should be used, which
> will be confusing to users.
>
> best,
> Colin
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Viktor
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 3, 2018, at 05:11, Viktor Somogyi wrote:
>> >> @Magnus, yes that is correct. Thanks for your feedback. Updated it with
>> >> this (which might be subject to change based on the conversation with
>> >> Colin): "The changes done will be incremental in version 1, opposed to the
>> >> atomic behavior in version 0. For instance in version 0 sending an update
>> >> for producer_byte_rate for userA would result in removing all previous
>> >> data
>> >> and setting userA's config with producer_byte_rate. Now in version 1
>> >> opposed to version 0 it will add an extra config and keeps other existing
>> >> configs."
>> >
>> > Hi Viktor,
>> >
>> > AdminClient#alterConfigs is a public API which users have already written
>> > code against. If we silently change what it does to be incremental
>> > addition rather than complete replacement of the existing configuration,
>> > we will break all of that existing code. If we do that, there is not even
>> > any way that users can write code to support both broker versions.
>> > AdminClient does not expose any API that users can use to check broker
>> > version. I think that would be really bad for users.
>> >
>> > Rather than breaking compatibility, we should simply add a new
>> > "incremental" boolean to AlterConfigsOptions. Callers can set this
>> > boolean to true when they want the update to be incremental. It should
>> > default to false so that old code continues to work.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> @Colin,
>> >> yes, I have/had a hard time finding a place for this operation. I think
>> >> ADD
>> >> and DELETE should be on config level to allow complex use cases (if
>> >> someone
>> >> builds their own tool based on the AdminClient), so users can add and
>> >> delete multiple configs in one request.
>> >
>> > Hmm. I don't think AlterOperation is necessary. If the user wants to
>> > delete a configuration key named "foo", they can create a ConfigEntry with
>> > name = "foo", value = null.
>> >
>> >> But also at the same time, SET is as you're suggesting really seems like a
>> >> flag that tells the AdminClient/AdminManager how they should behave.
>> >> However since the AdminClient matches protocol version with the broker via
>> >> the API_VERSIONS request, I think it would be enough to modify the
>> >> AdminManager that it should behave differently in case of an increased
>> >> protocol versions, if there is this extra flag set through
>> >> AlterConfigOptions (AdminClient sets the flag on the protocol, which will
>> >> be reflected after parsing in AdminManager). Also if we target this change
>> >> to 2.0 (June?), then we might not need the extra flag but make the
>> >> behavior
>> >> break. What do you think?
>> >
>> > Right. I think a flag in AlterConfigsRequest makes sense. AdminClient
>> > can set it based on a boolean field in AlterConfigsOptions.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Keeping the --zookeeper option working is not infeasible of course - and
>> >> as
>> >> per the community's feedback it may be the better option. Although one of
>> >> the goals is to put this new ConfigCommand to the tools module, which
>> >> doesn't have the dependency on the server code, it would be a bit harder.
>> >> Most likely I'd need to call into the Scala code with reflection, which
>> >> could be quite complicated.
>> >
>> > Yeah, this might be an excessive maintenance burden. Maybe we should get
>> > rid of the old zookeeper-based code, and just move towards having only a
>> > KIP-248-based tool. It's a breaking change, but it's clear to users that
>> > it's occurring, and what the fix is (specifying --bootstrap-server instead
>> > of --zookeeper).
>> >
>> > best,
>> > Colin
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Also rewrote the request semantics, hopefully it's more clear now.
>> >>
>> >> Let me know what do you think about this and thank you for your feedback.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Viktor
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Viktor,
>> >> >
>> >> > If I'm reading the KIP right, it looks like the new proposed verison of
>> >> > AlterConfigs sets an OperationType on a per-config basis:
>> >> >
>> >> > > AlterConfigs Request (Version: 1) => [resources] validate_only
>> >> > > validate_only => BOOLEAN
>> >> > > resources => resource_type resource_name [configs]
>> >> > > resource_type => INT8
>> >> > > resource_name => STRING
>> >> > > configs => config_name config_value config_operation
>> >> > > config_name => STRING
>> >> > > config_value => STRING
>> >> > > config_operation => INT8 [NEW ADDITION]
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Request Semantics:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > By default in the broker we parse an AlterConfigRequest version >> >> > 0
>> >> > > with Unknown operation and handle it with the currently existing
>> >> > behavior.
>> >> > > Version 1 requests however must have the operation set to other than
>> >> > > Unknown, otherwise an InvalidRequestException will be thrown.
>> >> > > Set operation also does Add if needed to be backward
>> >> > compatible
>> >> > > with the existing ConfigCommand semantics.
>> >> >
>> >> > However, this seems like a configuration that should be global to the
>> >> > whole AlterConfigs request, right? It doesn't make sense to have one
>> >> > configuration key use AlterOperation.Set and the other use
>> >> > AlterOperation.Add -- the Set one specifies that we should overwrite the
>> >> > whole node in ZK.
>> >> >
>> >> > Another consideration here is that we should do this in a compatible
>> >> > fashion in AdminClient. Existing code that relies on the "set
>> >> > everything"
>> >> > behavior should not break. The best way to do this is to add a boolean
>> >> > to
>> >> > ./clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/admin/AlterConfigsOptions.java
>> >> > , specifying whether we want to clear everything that hasn't been
>> >> > specified, or not. This should default to true so that existing code
>> >> > can
>> >> > continue to work.... Unless we believe that the existing AlterConfigs
>> >> > behavior is so broken that it should be changed, even in a
>> >> > compatibility-breaking way.
>> >> >
>> >> > Similarly, for other tools, we managed to support both the
>> >> > zookeeper-based
>> >> > way and the new way in the same tool for a while. This seems like
>> >> > something users would really want-- is it truly infeasible to do here?
>> >> > The
>> >> > Java code could call into the Scala code as necessary when the zk flag
>> >> > was
>> >> > specified, right?
>> >> >
>> >> > best,
>> >> > Colin
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, at 01:47, Magnus Edenhill wrote:
>> >> > > Hi Viktor,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > after speaking to Rajini it seems like this KIP will allow clients to
>> >> > > perform incremental configuration updates with AlterConfigs, only
>> >> > providing
>> >> > > the settings
>> >> > > that it wants to change, as opposed to the current atomic behaviour
>> >> > > where
>> >> > > all settings
>> >> > > need to be provided to avoid having them revert to their default
>> >> > > values.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > If this is indeed the case, could you update the KIP to make this more
>> >> > > clear?
>> >> > > I.e., that using Version 1 of AlterConfigs has the incremental
>> >> > > behaviour,
>> >> > > while
>> >> > > version 0 is atomic.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > > Magnus
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 2018-04-16 13:27 GMT+02:00 Viktor Somogyi <viktorsomo...@gmail.com>:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Hi Rajini,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > The current ConfigCommand would still be possible to use, therefore
>> >> > those
>> >> > > > who wish to set up SCRAM or initial quotas would be able to continue
>> >> > doing
>> >> > > > it through kafka-run-class.sh.
>> >> > > > In an ideal world I'd keep it in the current ConfigCommand command
>> >> > > > so
>> >> > we
>> >> > > > wouldn't mix the zookeeper and admin client configs. Perhaps I could
>> >> > create
>> >> > > > a kafka-configs-zookeeper.sh shell script for shortening the
>> >> > > > kafka-run-class command.
>> >> > > > What do you and others think?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thanks,
>> >> > > > Viktor
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Rajini Sivaram <
>> >> > rajinisiva...@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > Hi Viktor,
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > The KIP proposes to remove the ability to configure using
>> >> > > > > ZooKeeper.
>> >> > This
>> >> > > > > means we will no longer have the ability to start up a cluster
>> >> > > > > with
>> >> > SCRAM
>> >> > > > > credentials since we first need to create SCRAM credentials before
>> >> > > > brokers
>> >> > > > > can start if the broker uses SCRAM for inter-broker communication
>> >> > and we
>> >> > > > > need SCRAM credentials for the AdminClient before we can create
>> >> > > > > new
>> >> > ones.
>> >> > > > > For quotas as well, we will no longer be able to configure quotas
>> >> > until
>> >> > > > at
>> >> > > > > least one broker has been started. Perhaps, we ought to retain the
>> >> > > > ability
>> >> > > > > to configure using ZooKeeper for these initialization scenarios
>> >> > > > > and
>> >> > > > support
>> >> > > > > only AdminClient for dynamic updates?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > What do others think?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Regards,
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Rajini
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > +1
>> >> > > > > > -------- Original message --------From: zhenya Sun <
>> >> > toke...@126.com>
>> >> > > > > > Date: 4/15/18 12:42 AM (GMT-08:00) To: dev
>> >> > > > > > <dev@kafka.apache.org
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Cc:
>> >> > > > > > dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> Subject: Re: [VOTE] #2 KIP-248:
>> >> > > > > > Create
>> >> > New
>> >> > > > > > ConfigCommand That Uses The New AdminClient
>> >> > > > > > non-binding +1
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > from my iphone！
>> >> > > > > > On 04/15/2018 15:41, Attila Sasvári wrote:
>> >> > > > > > Thanks for updating the KIP.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > +1 (non-binding)
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Viktor Somogyi <viktorsomo...@gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont:
>> >> > > > > > 2018.
>> >> > ápr.
>> >> > > > > 9.,
>> >> > > > > > H 16:49):
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Hi Magnus,
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Thanks for the heads up, added the endianness to the KIP. Here
>> >> > is the
>> >> > > > > > > current text:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > "Double
>> >> > > > > > > A new type needs to be added to transfer quota values. Since
>> >> > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > protocol
>> >> > > > > > > classes in Kafka already uses ByteBuffers it is logical to use
>> >> > their
>> >> > > > > > > functionality for serializing doubles. The serialization is
>> >> > > > basically a
>> >> > > > > > > representation of the specified floating-point value according
>> >> > to the
>> >> > > > > > IEEE
>> >> > > > > > > 754 floating-point "double format" bit layout. The ByteBuffer
>> >> > > > > serializer
>> >> > > > > > > writes eight bytes containing the given double value, in Big
>> >> > Endian
>> >> > > > > byte
>> >> > > > > > > order, into this buffer at the current position, and then
>> >> > increments
>> >> > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > position by eight.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > The implementation will be defined in
>> >> > > > > > > org.apache.kafka.common.protocol.types with the other protocol
>> >> > types
>> >> > > > > > and it
>> >> > > > > > > will have no default value much like the other types available
>> >> > in the
>> >> > > > > > > protocol."
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Also, I haven't changed the protocol docs yet but will do so
>> >> > > > > > > in
>> >> > my PR
>> >> > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > this feature.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Let me know if you'd still add something.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Regards,
>> >> > > > > > > Viktor
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Magnus Edenhill <
>> >> > mag...@edenhill.se>
>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Hi Viktor,
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > since serialization of floats isn't as straight forward as
>> >> > > > integers,
>> >> > > > > > > please
>> >> > > > > > > > specify the exact serialization format of DOUBLE in the
>> >> > protocol
>> >> > > > docs
>> >> > > > > > > > (e.g., IEEE 754),
>> >> > > > > > > > including endianness (big-endian please).
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > This will help the non-java client ecosystem.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> >> > > > > > > > Magnus
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > 2018-04-09 15:16 GMT+02:00 Viktor Somogyi <
>> >> > viktorsomo...@gmail.com
>> >> > > > >:
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > Hi Attila,
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > 1. It uses ByteBuffers, which in turn will use
>> >> > > > > > Double.doubleToLongBits
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > convert the double value to a long and that long will be
>> >> > written
>> >> > > > in
>> >> > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > buffer. I'v updated the KIP with this.
>> >> > > > > > > > > 2. Good idea, modified it.
>> >> > > > > > > > > 3. During the discussion I remember we didn't really
>> >> > > > > > > > > decide
>> >> > which
>> >> > > > > one
>> >> > > > > > > > would
>> >> > > > > > > > > be the better one but I agree that a wrapper class that
>> >> > > > > > > > > makes
>> >> > > > sure
>> >> > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > list
>> >> > > > > > > > > that is used as a key is immutable is a good idea and
>> >> > > > > > > > > would
>> >> > ease
>> >> > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > life
>> >> > > > > > > > > of people using the interface. Also more importantly would
>> >> > make
>> >> > > > > sure
>> >> > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > we always use the same hashCode. I have created wrapper
>> >> > classes
>> >> > > > for
>> >> > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > map
>> >> > > > > > > > > value as well but that was reverted to keep things
>> >> > consistent.
>> >> > > > > > Although
>> >> > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > the key I think we wouldn't break consistency. I updated
>> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > KIP.
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> >> > > > > > > > > Viktor
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Attila Sasvári <
>> >> > > > > asasv...@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for working on it Viktor.
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > It looks good to me, but I have some questions:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > - I see a new type DOUBLE is used for quota_value , and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > is
>> >> > > > not
>> >> > > > > > > > listed
>> >> > > > > > > > > > among the primitive types on the Kafka protocol guide.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Can
>> >> > you
>> >> > > > > add
>> >> > > > > > > some
>> >> > > > > > > > > > more details?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > - I am not sure that using an environment (i.e.
>> >> > > > > > > > USE_OLD_COMMAND)variable
>> >> > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > the best way to control behaviour of kafka-config.sh .
>> >> > > > > > > > > > In
>> >> > other
>> >> > > > > > > scripts
>> >> > > > > > > > > > (e.g. console-consumer) an argument is passed (e.g.
>> >> > > > > > --new-consumer).
>> >> > > > > > > If
>> >> > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > still want to use it, then I would suggest something
>> >> > > > > > > > > > like
>> >> > > > > > > > > > USE_OLD_KAFKA_CONFIG_COMMAND. What do you think?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > - I have seen maps like Map<List<ConfigResource>,
>> >> > > > > > > > Collection<QuotaType>>.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > If List<ConfigResource> is the key type, you should make
>> >> > sure
>> >> > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > this
>> >> > > > > > > > > > List is immutable. Have you considered to introduce a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > new
>> >> > > > wrapper
>> >> > > > > > > > class?
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > - Attila
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:46 PM, zhenya Sun <
>> >> > toke...@126.com>
>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > +1 （non-binding）
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > | |
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > zhenya Sun
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > 邮箱：toke...@126.com
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > |
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > 签名由 网易邮箱大师 定制
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > On 03/29/2018 19:40, Sandor Murakozi wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, Viktor
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Viktor Somogyi <
>> >> > > > > > > > > viktorsomo...@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've started a vote on KIP-248
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
>> >> > luence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>> >> > > > > > > > > > 248+-+Create+New+
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ConfigCommand+That+Uses+The+New+AdminClient#KIP-248-
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > CreateNewConfigCommandThatUsesTheNewAdminClient-
>> >> > > > > > DescribeQuotas>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > a few weeks ago but at the time I got a couple more
>> >> > > > comments
>> >> > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > was
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > very close to 1.1 feature freeze, people were
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > occupied
>> >> > with
>> >> > > > > > that,
>> >> > > > > > > > so
>> >> > > > > > > > > I
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wanted to restart the vote on this.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > *Summary of the KIP*
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > For those who don't have context I thought I'd
>> >> > summarize it
>> >> > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > few
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > sentence.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > *Problem & Motivation: *The basic problem that the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > KIP
>> >> > > > tries
>> >> > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > solve
>> >> > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > that kafka-configs.sh (which in turn uses the
>> >> > ConfigCommand
>> >> > > > > > > class)
>> >> > > > > > > > > uses
>> >> > > > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > direct zookeeper connection. This is not desirable
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > getting
>> >> > > > > > > > around
>> >> > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > broker opens up security issues and prevents the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > tool
>> >> > from
>> >> > > > > > being
>> >> > > > > > > > used
>> >> > > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > deployments where only the brokers are exposed to
>> >> > clients.
>> >> > > > > > Also a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > somewhat
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > smaller motivation is to rewrite the tool in java as
>> >> > part
>> >> > > > of
>> >> > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > tools
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > component so we can get rid of requiring the core
>> >> > module on
>> >> > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > classpath
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for the kafka-configs tool.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > *Solution:*
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - I've designed new 2 protocols: DescribeQuotas and
>> >> > > > > > AlterQuotas.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - Also redesigned the output format of the command
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > line
>> >> > > > tool
>> >> > > > > so
>> >> > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > provides
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > a nicer result.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - kafka-configs.[sh/bat] will use a new java based
>> >> > > > > > ConfigCommand
>> >> > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > placed in tools.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd be happy to receive any votes or feedback on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > this.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Viktor
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> >
