There are some concerns about the incremental option that needs to be discussed further.
I believe everyone agrees on the need for incremental updates, allowing a client to only alter the configuration it provides in an atomic fashion. The proposal adds a request-level incremental bool for this purpose, which is good. But I suspect this might not be enough, and thus suggest that we should extend the per-config-entry struct with a mode field that tells the broker how to alter the given configuration entry: - append - append value to entry (if no previous value it acts like set) - set - overwrite value - delete - delete configuration entry / revert to default. If we don't do this, the incremental mode can only be used in "append" mode, and a client that wishes to overwrite property A, delete B, and append to C, will need to issue three requests: - 1. DescribeConfigs to get the current config. - 2. AlterConfigs(incremental=False) to overwrite config property A and delete B. - 3. AlterConfigs(incremental=True) to append to config property C. This makes the configuration update non-atomic, which incremental is set out to fix, any configuration changes made by another client between 1 and 2 would be lost at 2. This also needs to be exposed in the Admin API to make the user intention clear, ConfigEntry should be extended with a new constructor that takes the mode parameter: append, set, or delete. The existing constructor should default to set/overwrite (as in the existing pre-incremental case). If an application issues an AlterConfigs() request with append or delete ConfigEntrys and the broker does not support KIP-248, the request should fail locally in the client. For reference, this is how it is exposed in the corresponding C API: https://github.com/edenhill/librdkafka/blob/master/src/rdkafka.h#L5200 2018-07-04 11:28 GMT+02:00 Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@gmail.com>: > Hi Viktor, > > Where are we with this KIP? Is it just waiting for votes? We should try and > get this in earlier in the release cycle this time. > > Thank you, > > Rajini > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Viktor Somogyi <viktorsomo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I'd like to ask the community to please vote for this as the KIP > > freeze is tomorrow. > > > > Thank you very much, > > Viktor > > > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Viktor Somogyi <viktorsomo...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > Hi Colin, > > > > > > Sure, I'll add a note. > > > Thanks for your vote. > > > > > > Viktor > > > > > > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >> Hi Viktor, > > >> > > >> Thanks, this looks good. > > >> > > >> The boolean should default to false if not set, to ensure that > existing > > clients continue to work as-is, right? Might be good to add a note > > specifying that. > > >> > > >> +1 (non-binding) > > >> > > >> best, > > >> Colin > > >> > > >> On Fri, May 18, 2018, at 08:16, Viktor Somogyi wrote: > > >>> Updated KIP-248: > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > 248+-+Create+New+ConfigCommand+That+Uses+The+New+AdminClient > > >>> > > >>> I'd like to ask project members, committers and contributors to vote > > >>> as this would be a useful improvement in Kafka. > > >>> > > >>> Sections changed: > > >>> - Public interfaces: added the bin/scram-credentials.sh command that > > >>> we discussed with Colin. > > >>> - Wire format types: removed AlterOperations. As discussed with > Colin, > > >>> we don't actually need this: we should behave in an incremental way > in > > >>> AlterQuotas. For AlterConfig we'll implement this behavior with an > > >>> extra flag on the protocol (and incrementing the version). > > >>> - AlterQuotas protocol: removed AlterOperations. Added some more > > >>> description to the behavior of the protocol. Removing quotas will > > >>> happen by sending a NaN instead of the AlterOperations. (Since IEEE > > >>> 754 covers NaNs and it is not a valid config for any quota, I think > it > > >>> is a good notation.) > > >>> - SCRAM: so it will be done by the scram-credentials command that > uses > > >>> direct zookeeper connection. I think further modes, like doing it > > >>> through the broker is not necessary. The idea here is that zookeeper > > >>> in this case acts as a credentials store. This should be decoupled > > >>> from the broker as we manage broker credentials as well. The new > > >>> command acts as a client to the store. > > >>> - AlterConfigs will have an incremental_update flag as discussed. By > > >>> default it is false to provide the backward compatible behavior. When > > >>> it is true it will merge the configs with what's there in the node. > > >>> Deletion in incremental mode is done by sending an empty string as > > >>> config value. > > >>> - Other compatibility changes: this KIP doesn't scope listing > multiple > > >>> users and client's quotas. As per a conversation with Rajini, it is > > >>> not a common use case and we can add it back later if it is needed. > If > > >>> this functionality is needed, the old code should be still available > > >>> through run-kafka-class. (Removed the USE_OLD_KAFKA_CONFIG_COMMAND as > > >>> it doesn't make sense anymore.) > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Viktor Somogyi > > >>> <viktorsomo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > Ok, ignore my previous mail (except the last sentence), gmail > didn't > > >>> > update me about your last email :/. > > >>> > > > >>> >> I think we should probably just create a flag for alterConfigs > > which marks it as incremental, like we discussed earlier, and do this as > a > > compatible change that is needed for the shell command. > > >>> > > > >>> > Alright, I missed that about the sensitive configs too, so in this > > >>> > case I can agree with this. I'll update the KIP this afternoon and > > >>> > update this thread. > > >>> > Thanks again for your contribution. > > >>> > > > >>> > Viktor > > >>> > > > >>> > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 2:34 AM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >>> >> Actually, I just realized that this won't work. The AlterConfigs > > API is kind of broken right now. DescribeConfigs won't return the > > "sensitive" configurations like passwords. So doing describe + edit + > > alter will wipe out all sensitive configs. :( > > >>> >> > > >>> >> I think we should probably just create a flag for alterConfigs > > which marks it as incremental, like we discussed earlier, and do this as > a > > compatible change that is needed for the shell command. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> best, > > >>> >> Colin > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> On Thu, May 17, 2018, at 09:32, Colin McCabe wrote: > > >>> >>> Hi Viktor, > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> Since the KIP freeze is coming up really soon, maybe we should > > just drop > > >>> >>> the section about changes to AlterConfigs from KIP-248. We don't > > really > > >>> >>> need it here, since ConfigCommand can use AlterConfigs as-is. > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> We can pick up the discussion about improving AlterConfigs in a > > future KIP. > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> cheers, > > >>> >>> Colin > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> On Wed, May 16, 2018, at 22:06, Colin McCabe wrote: > > >>> >>> > Hi Viktor, > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > The shell command isn’t that easy to integrate into > applications. > > >>> >>> > AdminClient will get integrated into a lot more stuff, which > > >>> >>> > increases the potential for conflicts. I would argue that we > > should > > >>> >>> > fix this soon. > > >>> >>> > If we do want to reduce the scope in this KIP, we could do the > > merge in > > >>> >>> > the ConfigCommand tool for now, and leave AC unchanged. > > >>> >>> > Best, > > >>> >>> > Colin > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> >>> > On Wed, May 16, 2018, at 04:57, Viktor Somogyi wrote: > > >>> >>> > > Hi Colin, > > >>> >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > > Doing get-merge-set is buggy, though. If someone else does > > get-merge- > > >>> >>> > > > set at the same time as you, you might overwrite that > > person's > > >>> >>> > > > changes, or vice versa. So I really don't think we should > > try to do > > >>> >>> > > > this. Also, having both an incremental and a full API is > > useful, > > >>> >>> > > > and it's just a single boolean at the protocol and API > > level.> > > >>> >>> > > Overwriting somebody's change is currently possible with the > > >>> >>> > > ConfigCommand, as it will do this get-merge-set behavior on > > the client> side, in the command. From this perspective I think it's not > > much > > >>> >>> > > different to do this with the admin client. Also I think > > admins don't> modify the quotas/configs of a client/user/topic/broker > often > > (and > > >>> >>> > > multiple admins would do it even more rarely), so I don't > > think it is> a big issue. What I think would be useful here but may be > out > > of scope> is to version the changes similarly to leader epochs. So when > an > > admin> updates the configs, it will increment a version number and won't > > let> other admins to push changes in with lower than that. Instead it > > would> return an error. > > >>> >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > I would be also interested what others think about this? > > >>> >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > Cheers, > > >>> >>> > > Viktor > > >>> >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > > > >>> >>> > > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Colin McCabe > > >>> >>> > > <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:> > On Wed, May 9, 2018, at > 05:41, > > Viktor Somogyi wrote: > > >>> >>> > > >> 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? > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > Hi Viktor, > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > Doing get-merge-set is buggy, though. If someone else does > > get-merge- > > >>> >>> > > > set at the same time as you, you might overwrite that > > person's > > >>> >>> > > > changes, or vice versa. So I really don't think we should > > try to do > > >>> >>> > > > this. Also, having both an incremental and a full API is > > useful, > > >>> >>> > > > and it's just a single boolean at the protocol and API > > level.> > > > >>> >>> > > >> > > >>> >>> > > >> > 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.> > > > >>> >>> > > > OK. Thanks for the explanation. Using an empty string to > > indicate > > >>> >>> > > > delete, as Rajini suggested, seems pretty reasonable to me. > > null > > >>> >>> > > > would work as well.> > > > >>> >>> > > >> > > >>> >>> > > >> >> 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. > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > Thanks for finding this inconsistency. I'll change the KIP > > to > > >>> >>> > > > reflect what was actually implemented (nullable string for > > error).> > > > >>> >>> > > > cheers, > > >>> >>> > > > Colin > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > >> > > >>> >>> > > >> > 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/Alt- > > >>> >>> > > >> >> >> > erConfigsOptions.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+AdminC- > > >>> >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > lient#KIP-248-> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > CreateNewConfigCommandThatUsesTheNewAd- > > >>> >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > minClient-> >> >> >> > > > > > > > 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 > > >>> >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >>> >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >>> >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >>> >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >>> >>> > > >> >> >> > > > > > >>> >>> > > >> >> >> > > > >>> >>> > > > >>> > > > > >
