NamedEntity is not allowing underscores - does it make sense?
On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 8:35 AM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Thanks for starting this thread, Mattison.
>
> > The topic name character validation is already done by
> > `NamedEntity#checkName`.
>
> Based on my reading of the code, only the tenant and the namespace
> names are validated using that method. There is a call [0] that looks
> like it validates topic names, but that method is only called by
> tests.
>
> > But I have a concern that whether we should
> > treat all topics that start with the long underscore ("__") as system
> > topics?
>
> This is a reasonable concern, and my primary motivation in proposing
> this change is to make it easier for the broker to handle system
> topics, which often get unique treatment.
>
> I wrote on this topic in several replies on this thread from a year ago
> [1].
>
> In the context of PIP 242, we're introducing a config to optionally
> enforce strict topic names. As such, we could rely on the config to
> either use the "cheap" check to see if the topic starts with __ or we
> could use the more expensive check to determine if the topic name is
> one of many possible system topic names. Because we want to maintain
> backwards compatibility, we cannot completely get rid of the old
> logic. I like self describing names because they are elegant and
> efficient.
>
> > If yes, how would you like to allow users to access the system topics?
>
> I proposed some ideas at the end of that thread [1]. We should have a
> clear definition of system topics and how they are or are not accessed by
> users. Ultimately, we continue to create new system topics without
> reserving a designated naming structure and without defining how these
> topics ought to be interacted with, as Yunze points out. Note that any
> system topic we introduce could conflict with existing user topics, so
> proactively reserving a set of names makes it easier for forwards
> compatibility.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> [0]
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/b880b1d240ade864181935aa360bfca03a5aa67f/pulsar-common/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/common/naming/NamespaceName.java#L159
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/pj4n4wzm3do8nkc52l7g7obh0sktzm17
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 11:28 PM r...@apache.org <ranxiaolong...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mattison:
> >
> > Agree with Yong's idea. We can expose `disallowed topic` as a
> configuration
> > to the user side, and a more flexible way is to expose it as a
> > namespace-level policy. This can ensure that there is no need to do
> special
> > processing on customized keywords in the future, and the expected effect
> > can be achieved by modifying the configuration.
> >
> > Think Yunze's concerns are justified for the system topic. Is it okay if
> we
> > use hard code? Because the identification of any keyword is likely to be
> > hit by the user. The hard code method is used to filter out system topics
> > and not allow users to operate during delete and create operations.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > Xiaolong Ran
> >
> > Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> 于2023年2月2日周四 11:26写道：
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Feb 1, 2023, at 6:52 PM, Yong Zhang <zhangyong1025...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mattison,
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you about restricting the topic name.
> > > >
> > > > How about using a blacklist way to restrict it?
> > >
> > > If we do then please call it by another name like “disallowed”.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > We can have a blacklist on the topic name restriction and make it
> > > > configurable. Add the keywords you mentioned in the default
> > > configuration.
> > > > That would have a more general way to block a topic name creation.
> > > > If we have more restrictions on the topic name in the future, this
> way
> > > > can make it easy to fit them without changing any code.
> > >
> > > Is there anyone asking for this feature?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yong
> > > >
> > > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 07:33, <mattisonc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi, All
> > > >>
> > > >> In the current implementation, pulsar didn't support topic name
> > > >> restriction. It's a good chance to discuss it.
> > > >>
> > > >> I think this discussion aims to identify what types of topic names
> we
> > > all
> > > >> need to restrict.
> > > >>
> > > >> I know three topic names that need to be restricted at the moment.
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. The `-partition-` keyword.
> > > >> 2. Topic name characters validation.
> > > >> 3. System topic prefix `__`.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Please feel free to leave your comments.
> > > >> I will keep this discussion for a week. If there are no more new
> types
> > > of
> > > >> restrictions, I will refine the previous PIP-242[0] to explain more
> > > details.
> > > >>> If we have other restrictions behind this discussion. We can draft
> a
> > > new
> > > >> PIP to add it directly.
> > > >> Thanks to Michael's opinion[1], we can expand the PIP-242 scopes to
> help
> > > >> pulsar have a good topic name restriction.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> Mattison
> > > >>
> > > >> [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19239
> > > >> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/dd1kxhodjvovtb8yyojkk209st4o0ft2
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
>
