Thanks for the votes everyone! KIP-411 is now accepted with: +3 binding votes (Randall, Jason, Gwen) , and +3 non-binding votes (Ryanne, Arjun, Magesh)
Regards, Paul On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 10:07 PM Arjun Satish <arjun.sat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good point, Gwen. We always set a non empty value for client id: > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/2.2.0/clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/consumer/KafkaConsumer.java#L668 > . > > But more importantly, connect client ids (for consumers, for example) were > already of the form "consumer-[0-9]+", and from now on they will be > "connector-consumer-[connector_name]-[0-9]+". So, at least for connect > consumers/producers, we would have already been hitting the default quota > limits and nothing changes for them. You can correct me if I'm missing > something, but seems like this doesn't *break* backward compatibility? > > I suppose this change only gives us a better way to manage that quota > limit. > > Best, > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 9:16 PM Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > I'm confused. Surely the default quota applies on empty client IDs too? > > otherwise it will be very difficult to enforce? > > So setting the client name will only change something if there's already > a > > quota for that client? > > > > On the other hand, I fully support switching to "easy-to-wildcard" > template > > for the client id. > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 8:50 PM Arjun Satish <arjun.sat...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I just realized that setting the client.id on the will now trigger any > > > quota restrictions ( > > > https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#design_quotasconfig) on the > > > broker. > > > It seems like this PR will enforce quota policies that will either > > require > > > admins to set limits for each task (since the chosen format is > > > connector-*-id), or fallback to some default value. > > > > > > Maybe we should mention this in the backward compatibility section for > > the > > > KIP. At the same time, since there is no way atm to turn off this > > feature, > > > should this feature be merged and released in the upcoming v2.3? This > is > > > something the committers can comment better. > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:13 PM Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > hell yeah! > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:08 AM Paul Davidson > > > > <pdavid...@salesforce.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > Since we seem to have agreement in the discussion I would like to > > start > > > > the > > > > > vote on KIP-411. > > > > > > > > > > See: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-411%3A+Make+default+Kafka+Connect+worker+task+client+IDs+distinct > > > > > > > > > > Also see the related PR: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6097 > > > > > > > > > > Thanks to everyone who contributed! > > > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > *Gwen Shapira* > > > > Product Manager | Confluent > > > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > > > Follow us: Twitter <https://twitter.com/ConfluentInc> | blog > > > > <http://www.confluent.io/blog> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Gwen Shapira* > > Product Manager | Confluent > > 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap > > Follow us: Twitter <https://twitter.com/ConfluentInc> | blog > > <http://www.confluent.io/blog> > > >
