Randall, The approach to return the to override configs could possibly make it cumbersome to implement a custom policy. This is a new configuration and if you don't explicitly set it the existing behavior remains as-is. Like Chris, I also preferred this approach for the sake of simplicity. If not for the default `null` I would prefer to fall back to using `Ignore` which is a misnomer to the interface spec but still gets the job done via instanceOf checks. The other options I could think of are as below:-
- have an enforcePolicy() method in the interface which by default returns true and the Ignore implementation could return false - introduce another worker config allow.connector.config.overrides with a default value of false and the default policy can be None Let me know what you think. Thanks Magesh On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 6:52 PM Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Chris. I still think it's strange to have a non-policy, since > there's now special behavior for when the policy is not specified. > > Perhaps the inability for a policy implementation to represent the existing > behavior suggests that the policy interface isn't quite right. Could the > policy's "validate" method take the overrides that were supplied and return > the overrides that should be passed to the connector, yet still throwing an > exception if any supplied overrides are not allowed. Then the different > policy implementations might be: > > - Ignore (default) - returns all supplied override properties > - None - throws exception if any override properties are supplied; > always returns empty map if no overrides are provided > - Principal - throws exception if other override properties are > provided, but returns an empty map (since no properties should be > passed to > the connector) > - All - returns all provided override properties > > All override properties defined on the connector configuration would be > passed to the policy for validation, and assuming there's no error all of > these overrides would be used in the producer/consumer/admin client. The > result of the policy call, however, is used to determine which of these > overrides are passed to the connector. > > This approach means that all behaviors can be implemented through a policy > class, including the defaults. It also gives a bit more control to custom > policies, should that be warranted. For example, validating the provided > client overrides but passing all such override properties to the connector, > which as I stated earlier is something I think connectors likely don't look > for. > > Thoughts? > > Randall > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 6:07 PM Chris Egerton <chr...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Randall, > > > > The special behavior for null was my suggestion. There is no > implementation > > of the proposed interface that causes client overrides to be ignored, so > > the original idea was to have a special implementation that would be > > checked for by the Connect framework (probably via the instanceof > operator) > > and, if present, cause all would-be overrides to be ignored. > > > > I thought this may be confusing to people who may see that behavior and > > wonder how to recreate it themselves, so I suggested leaving that policy > > out and replace it with a check to see if a policy was specified at all. > > > > Would be interested in your thoughts on this, especially if there's an > > alternative that hasn't been proposed yet. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 18:01 Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:20 PM Magesh Nandakumar < > mage...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Randall, > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your feedback. > > > > > > > > You bring up an interesting point regarding the overrides being > > available > > > > to the connectors. Today everything that is specified in the config > > while > > > > creating is available for the connector. But this is a specific case > > and > > > we > > > > could do either of the following > > > > > > > > > > > > - don't pass any configs with these prefixes to the > ConnectorConfig > > > > instance that's passed in the startConnector > > > > - allow policies as to whether the configurations with the > prefixes > > > > should be made available to the connector or not. Should this also > > > > define a > > > > list of configurations? > > > > > > > > I personally prefer not passing the configs to Connector since that's > > > > simple, straight forward and don't see a reason for the connector to > > > access > > > > those. > > > > > > > > > > I agree that these override properties should be effectively new > > > properties, in which case I'd also prefer that they be removed from the > > > configuration before it is passed to the connector. Yes, it is > *possible* > > > that an existing connector happened to use connector config properties > > with > > > these prefixes, but it's seems pretty unlikely. > > > > > > I'd love to hear whether other people agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the second point, None - doesn't allow overrides and the default > > > > policy is null. We preserve backward compatibility when no policy is > > > > configured. Let me know if that's not clear in the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > Why not have a default policy (rather than null) that implements the > > > backward-compatible behavior? It seems strange to have null be the > > default > > > and for non-policy to allow anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Magesh > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 4:07 PM Randall Hauch <rha...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Per the proposal, a connector configuration can define one or more > > > > > properties that begin with any of the three prefixes: > > > > "producer.override.", > > > > > "consumer.override.", and "admin.override.". The proposal states: > > > > > > > > > > Since the users can specify any of these policies, the connectors > > > itself > > > > > should not rely on these configurations to be available. The > > overrides > > > > are > > > > > to be used purely from an operational perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this mean that any such properties are visible to connectors, > or > > > > will > > > > > they be hidden to connectors? Currently no connectors have access > to > > > such > > > > > client properties, and users are unlike to just put them into a > > > connector > > > > > configuration unnecessarily. A connector implementation could have > > > > defined > > > > > such properties as normal connector-specific properties, in which > > case > > > > they > > > > > are required, but is that likely given the log prefixes? One > concern > > > > that I > > > > > have is that this might allow connector implementations start > > > attempting > > > > to > > > > > circumvent the Connect API if these properties are included. > > > > > > > > > > Second, does the None policy allow but ignore these additional > > > properties > > > > > (e.g., "validate(...)" is simply a no-op)? Or does the None policy > > fail > > > > if > > > > > any client overrides are specified? The former seems more in line > > with > > > > the > > > > > current behavior, whereas the "disallows" policy seems useful but > not > > > > > exactly backward compatible. Should we also offer a "Disallow" > > policy? > > > In > > > > > fact, should the policies be named "Ignore" (default), "Disallow", > > > > > "Prinicipal", and "All"? > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise, I like the idea of this. There have been several > requests > > > over > > > > > the past year or two for adding subsets of this functionality. > Might > > be > > > > > good to find and list all of the related KAFKA issues. > > > > > > > > > > Randall > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 4:04 PM Chris Egerton <chr...@confluent.io > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Magesh, > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes look good to me! Excited to see this happen, hope the KIP > > > > passes > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 1:44 PM Magesh Nandakumar < > > > > mage...@confluent.io> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have updated the KIP to reflect the changes that we discussed > > for > > > > the > > > > > > > prefix. Thanks for all your inputs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Magesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:18 PM Chris Egerton < > > chr...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Magesh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed that we should avoid `dlq.admin`. I also don't have a > > > strong > > > > > > > opinion > > > > > > > > between `connector.` and `.override`, but I have a slight > > > > inclination > > > > > > > > toward `.override` since `connector.` feels a little > redundant > > > > given > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > the whole configuration is for the connector and the use of > > > > > "override" > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > shed a little light on how the properties for these clients > are > > > > > > computed > > > > > > > > and help make the learning curve a little gentler on new devs > > and > > > > > > users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regardless, I think the larger issue of conflicts with > existing > > > > > > > properties > > > > > > > > (both in MM2 and potentially other connectors) has been > > > > > satisfactorily > > > > > > > > addressed, so I'm happy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:14 AM Magesh Nandakumar < > > > > > > mage...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HI Chrise, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are right about the "admin." prefix creating conflicts. > > > Here > > > > > are > > > > > > > few > > > > > > > > > options that I can think of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Use `dlq.admin` since admin client is used only for DLQ. > > But > > > > > this > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > > not really be the case in the future. So, we should > possibly > > > drop > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > idea > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > 2. Use `connector.producer`, `connector.consumer` and > > > > > > > `connector.admin` > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > provides better context that its connector specific > property > > > > > > > > > 3. Use `producer.override`, '`consumer.override` and > > > > > > `admin.override` > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > provides better clarity that these are overrides. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have a strong opinion in choosing between #2 and > #3. > > > Let > > > > me > > > > > > > > > know what you think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Magesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:25 AM Chris Egerton < > > > > > chr...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Magesh, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Next round :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. It looks like MM2 will also support "admin." > properties > > > that > > > > > > > affect > > > > > > > > > > AdminClients it creates and uses, which IIUC is the same > > > prefix > > > > > > name > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > used for managing the DLQ for sink connectors in this > KIP. > > > > > Doesn't > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > still leave room for conflict? I'm imagining a scenario > > like > > > > > this: > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > Connect worker is configured to use the > > > > > > > > > > PrincipalConnectorClientConfigPolicy, someone tries to > > start > > > an > > > > > > > > instance > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > an MM2 sink with "admin." properties beyond just > > > > > > > > > "admin.sasl.jaas.config", > > > > > > > > > > and gets rejected because those properties are then > > > interpreted > > > > > by > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > worker as overrides for the AdminClient it uses to manage > > the > > > > > DLQ. > > > > > > > > > > 2. (LGTM) > > > > > > > > > > 3. I'm convinced by this, as long as nobody else > > identifies a > > > > > > common > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > case that would involve a similar client config policy > > > > > > implementation > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > would be limited to a small set of whitelisted configs. > For > > > now > > > > > > > keeping > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > PrincipalConnectorClientConfigPolicy sounds fine to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:30 PM Magesh Nandakumar < > > > > > > > > mage...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also have a draft implementation of the KIP > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6624. I would > still > > > > need > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > include > > > > > > > > > > > more tests and docs but I thought it would be useful to > > > have > > > > > this > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > KIP discussion. Looking forward to all of your valuable > > > > > feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > Magesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:27 PM Magesh Nandakumar < > > > > > > > > > mage...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chrise, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your feedback. I will address them > in > > > > order > > > > > of > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > questions/comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Thanks for bringing this to my attention about > > > KIP-382. > > > > I > > > > > > had > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > closer > > > > > > > > > > > > look at the KIP and IIUC, the KIP allows `consumer.` > > > prefix > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > SourceConnector > > > > > > > > > > > > and producer. prefix for SinkConnector since those > are > > > > > > additional > > > > > > > > > > > > connector properties to help resolve the Kafka > cluster > > > > other > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > > > Connect framework knows about. Whereas, the proposal > in > > > > > KIP-458 > > > > > > > > > applies > > > > > > > > > > > > producer policies for SinkConnectors and consumer > > > policies > > > > > > > > > > > > SourceConnectors. So, from what I understand this > new > > > > policy > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > work > > > > > > > > > > > > without any issues even for Mirror Maker 2.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I have updated the KIP to use a default value of > > null > > > > and > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > determine if we need to ignore overrides. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I would still prefer to keep the special > > > > > > > > > > > PrincipalConnectorClientConfigPolicy > > > > > > > > > > > > since that is one of the most common use cases one > > would > > > > > choose > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > feature. If we make it a general case, that would > > involve > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > > requiring > > > > > > > > > > > > to add additional configuration and they might > require > > > well > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > > the list of configs but might also want some > > restriction > > > on > > > > > > > values. > > > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > concern is about users wanting principal and also > other > > > > > > configs, > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > still be possible by means of a custom > implementation. > > As > > > > > is, I > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > prefer to keep the proposal to be the same for this. > > Let > > > me > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Magesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 3:44 PM Chris Egerton < > > > > > > > chr...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Magesh, > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> This is an exciting KIP! I have a few > > questions/comments > > > > but > > > > > > > > > overall I > > > > > > > > > > > >> like > > > > > > > > > > > >> the direction it's headed in and hope to see it > > included > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > Connect > > > > > > > > > > > >> framework soon. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> 1. With the proposed "consumer.", "producer.", and > > > > "admin." > > > > > > > > > prefixes, > > > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > >> will this interact with connectors such as the > > upcoming > > > > > Mirror > > > > > > > > Maker > > > > > > > > > > 2.0 > > > > > > > > > > > >> (KIP-382) that already support properties with those > > > > > prefixes? > > > > > > > > Would > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > >> possible for a user to configure MM2 with those > > > properties > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > >> being interpreted as Connect client overrides, > without > > > > > > isolating > > > > > > > > MM2 > > > > > > > > > > > onto > > > > > > > > > > > >> its own cluster and using the > > > > > > IgnoreConnectorClientConfigPolicy > > > > > > > > > > policy? > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. Is the IgnoreConnectorClientConfigPolicy class > > > > necessary? > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > > > > >> for the connector.client.config.policy property > could > > > > simply > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > null > > > > > > > > > > > >> instead of a new policy that, as far as I can tell, > > > isn't > > > > an > > > > > > > > actual > > > > > > > > > > > policy > > > > > > > > > > > >> in that its validate(...) method is never invoked > and > > > > > instead > > > > > > > > > > > represents a > > > > > > > > > > > >> special case to the Connect framework that says > "Drop > > > all > > > > > > > > overrides > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > >> never use me". > > > > > > > > > > > >> 3. The PrincipalConnectorClientConfigPolicy seems > > like a > > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > > > > > instance > > > > > > > > > > > >> of a more general use case: allow exactly a small > set > > of > > > > > > > overrides > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > >> others. Why not generalize here and create a policy > > that > > > > > > > accepts a > > > > > > > > > > list > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > >> allowed overrides during configuration? > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks again for the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Chris > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 2:53 PM Magesh Nandakumar < > > > > > > > > > > mage...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > I've posted "KIP-458: Connector Client Config > > Override > > > > > > > Policy", > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > >> > allows users to override the connector client > > > > > configurations > > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > >> > policy defined by the administrator. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > The KIP can be found at > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-458%3A+Connector+Client+Config+Override+Policy > > > > > > > > > > > >> > . > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Looking forward for the discussion on the KIP and > > all > > > of > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts & > > > > > > > > > > > >> > feedback on this enhancement to Connect. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Magesh > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
