Hi Magesh, Thanks for your comments. I'll address them in the order you provided them:
1 - Reason for exposing task configurations to REST extensions: Yes, the motivation is a little thin for exposing task configs to REST extensions. I can think of a few uses for this functionality, such as attempting to infer problematic configurations by examining failed tasks and comparing their configurations to the configurations of running tasks, but like you've indicated it's dubious that the best place for anything like that belongs in a REST extension. I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts, but right now I'm not too opposed to erring on the side of caution and leaving it out. Worst case, it takes another KIP to add this later on down the road, but that's a small price to pay to avoid adding support for a feature that nobody needs. 2. Usefulness of exposing Kafka cluster ID to REST extensions: As the KIP states, "the Kafka cluster ID may be useful for the purpose of uniquely identifying a Connect cluster from within a REST extension, since users may be running multiple Kafka clusters and the group.id for a distributed Connect cluster may not be sufficient to identify a cluster." Even though there may be producer or consumer overrides for bootstrap.servers present in the configuration for the worker, these will not affect which Kafka cluster is used as a backing store for connector configurations, offsets, and statuses, so the Kafka cluster ID for the worker in conjunction with the Connect group ID should be sufficient to uniquely identify a Connect cluster. We can and should document that the Connect cluster with overridden producer.bootstrap.servers or consumer.bootstrap.servers may be writing to/reading from a different Kafka cluster. However, REST extensions are already passed the configs for their worker through their configure(...) method, so they'd be able to detect any such overrides and act accordingly. Thanks again for your thoughts! Cheers, Chris On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:08 AM Magesh Nandakumar <mage...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Thanks for the KIP. Overall, it looks good and straightforward to me. > > I had a few questions on the new methods > > 1. I'm not sure if an extension would ever require the task configs. An > extension generally should only require the health and current state of the > connector which includes the connector config. I was wondering if there is > a specific reason it would need task configs. > 2. Also, I'm not convinced that kafkaClusterId() belongs to the > ConnectClusterState > interface. The interface is generally to provide information about the > Connect cluster and its information. Also, the kafkaClusterId could > potentially change based on whether there is a "producer." or "consumer." > prefix, right? > > Having said that, I would prefer to have connectorConfigs which I think is > a great idea and addition to the interface. Let me know what you think. > > Thanks, > Magesh > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 9:00 PM Chris Egerton <chr...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I've posted "KIP-454: Expansion of the ConnectClusterState interface", > > which proposes that we add provide more information about the Connect > > cluster to REST extensions. > > > > The KIP can be found at > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-454%3A+Expansion+of+the+ConnectClusterState+interface > > > > I'm eager to hear people's thoughts on this and will appreciate any > > feedback. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > >
