Hi Ismael,
Thanks for your comments.
Regarding the loophole issue, keep in mind that the alter topics
> authorization would still be required, so I don't think it's an issue
>
It could be an issue for people trying to provide a Kafka-as-a-Service
offering, couldn't it? I mean if the providers ar
Hi Tom,
OK, I suggest not calling any policy then. We can do a separate KIP for
overhauling topic policies so that they work with all operations for 1.1.0.
Regarding the loophole issue, keep in mind that the alter topics
authorization would still be required, so I don't think it's an issue.
Users
2. About using the create topics policy, I'm not sure. Aside from the
> naming issue, there's also the problem that the policy doesn't know if a
> creation or update is taking place. This matters because one may not want
> to allow the number of partitions to be changed after creation as it
> affec
>> >> > > Then if an API for decreasing were ever implemented it could be
>> >> > > removePartitions() with a RemovedPartitions class if necessary.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Cheers,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Tom
>> >> > >
>
t...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 11:28 AM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: EXT: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-195: AdminClient.increasePartitions
>
> I've gone with createPartitions() and NewPartitions.
>
> To answer my own question about the replication factor
8 September 2017 at 12:13, Paolo Patierno
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > My 2 cents about naming ...
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > PartitionCount or NumPartitions sound better to me providing an
> >> > > "absolute"
> >> > > > value
, September 08, 2017 11:28 AM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: EXT: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-195: AdminClient.increasePartitions
I've gone with createPartitions() and NewPartitions.
To answer my own question about the replication factor, the current code
(specifically AdminUtils.addPartitions()) just use
t; > > > PartitionCount or NumPartitions sound better to me providing an
>> > > "absolute"
>> > > > value (as today the kafka-topics script work) for an idempotent
>> > operation
>> > > > while the NumPartitionsIncrease name s
t; > > >
> > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > Microsoft MVP on Windows Embedded & IoT
> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > >
> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppati
at
> > > Microsoft MVP on Windows Embedded & IoT
> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > >
> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpre
aolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Tom Bentley
> > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 9:39 AM
> > To: dev@kafka.apache
opatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
>
> From: Tom Bentley
> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 9:39 AM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-195: AdminClien
t;
From: Tom Bentley
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 9:39 AM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-195: AdminClient.increasePartitions
Hi Ismael,
Thanks for the comments.
My bad for not noticing the custom assignment requirement. The current
>
Hi Ismael,
Thanks for the comments.
My bad for not noticing the custom assignment requirement. The current
> proposal has the following example (I updated it a little so that 2
> partitions are added):
>
> increasePartitionCount(4, asList(asList(1, 2), asList(2, 3))
>
> Why not simply provide the
My bad for not noticing the custom assignment requirement. The current
proposal has the following example (I updated it a little so that 2
partitions are added):
increasePartitionCount(4, asList(asList(1, 2), asList(2, 3))
Why not simply provide the assignment? For example, if you want to add 2
p
Hi Ted and Ismael,
Thanks for the comments.
Ted, I've fixed the KIP for your comments.
Ismael, see responses inline:
On 8 September 2017 at 02:00, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Thanks Tom. Thanks for the KIP. A few comments:
>
> 1. Does the `PartitionCount` class still make sense given that the method
Thanks Tom. Thanks for the KIP. A few comments:
1. Does the `PartitionCount` class still make sense given that the method
can only increase the number of partitions now?
2,. In `NewTopic`, we have `numPartitions`. Should we keep using that
variant and call the method `increaseNumPartitions`?
3. Si
Tom:
Looks good overall.
bq. for the topic from the AlterPartitionCountsResult
Please align the name of Result with current proposal.
Please also fill in JIRA number when you have it.
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Tom Bentley wrote:
> As suggested by Ismael, I've factored the increasePartit
As suggested by Ismael, I've factored the increasePartitionCounts() API out
of KIP-179 out into a separate KIP which hopefully can progress more
quickly.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-195%3A+AdminClient.increasePartitions
If you've looked at KIP-179 in the last few days th
19 matches
Mail list logo
