You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@kafka.apache.org by Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> on 2017/12/01 10:37:47 UTC
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
I have a PR for this (https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4281) in case
anyone wants to look at the implementation in detail, but right now this
KIP still lacks any committer votes.
Cheers,
Tom
On 22 November 2017 at 17:32, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just wanted to highlight to committers that although this KIP has three
> non-binding votes, it currently lacks any binding votes: Any feedback would
> be appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> On 7 November 2017 at 20:42, Stephane Maarek <stephane@simplemachines.com.
> au> wrote:
>
>> Okay makes sense thanks! As you said maybe in the future (or now), it's
>> worth starting a server java dependency jar that's not called "client".
>> Probably a debate for another day (
>>
>> Tom, crossing fingers to see more votes on this! Good stuff
>>
>>
>> On 7/11/17, 9:51 pm, "Ismael Juma" <ismaelj@gmail.com on behalf of
>> ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> The idea is that you only depend on a Java jar. The core jar includes
>> the
>> Scala version in the name and you should not care about that when
>> implementing a Java interface.
>>
>> Ismael
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Stephane Maarek <
>> stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks !
>> >
>> > How about a java folder package in the core then ? It's not a
>> separate jar
>> > and it's still java?
>> >
>> > Nonetheless I agree these are details. I just got really confused
>> when
>> > trying to write my policy and would hope that confusion is not
>> shared by
>> > others because it's a "client " class although should only reside
>> within a
>> > broker
>> >
>> > On 7 Nov. 2017 9:04 pm, "Ismael Juma" <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > The location of the policies is fine. Note that the package _does
>> not_
>> > include clients in the name. If we ever have enough server side
>> only code
>> > to merit a separate JAR, we can do that and it's mostly compatible
>> (users
>> > would only have to update their build dependency). Generally, all
>> public
>> > APIs going forward will be in Java.
>> >
>> > Ismael
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Stephane Maarek <
>> > stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Tom,
>> > >
>> > > Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine
>> (the
>> > > compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy
>> to be
>> > > implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer)
>> > > It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > > Stephane
>> > >
>> > > Kind regards,
>> > > Stephane
>> > >
>> > > [image: Simple Machines]
>> > >
>> > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
>> > >
>> > > +61 416 575 980
>> > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
>> > > simplemachines.com.au
>> > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>> > >
>> > > On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Stephane,
>> > > >
>> > > > The vote on this KIP is on-going.
>> > > >
>> > > > I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and
>> Mickael
>> > > would
>> > > > have to to not disagree with them.
>> > > >
>> > > > The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now.
>> I don't
>> > > know
>> > > > the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that
>> it's not
>> > > > ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the
>> > > situation
>> > > > with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side
>> > extensions
>> > > > points which users can provide their own implementations of. I
>> don't
>> > know
>> > > > whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala
>> and
>> > java
>> > > > code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if
>> these
>> > > > server-side policies were moved.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > >
>> > > > Tom
>> > > >
>> > > > On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek <
>> > > stephane@simplemachines.com.
>> > > > au
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi Tom,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to
>> implement a
>> > > > > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy
>> > > > > (and Alter, etc...)
>> > > > > These policies would have some most basic parameter to check
>> for
>> > > > > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that
>> end users
>> > > can
>> > > > > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the
>> > interface
>> > > so
>> > > > > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress
>> so I can
>> > > > > propose my KIP.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Finally, have the packages been discussed?
>> > > > > I find it extremely awkward to have the current
>> CreateTopicPolicy
>> > part
>> > > of
>> > > > > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next
>> classes
>> > > you're
>> > > > > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or
>> > > > server/policy.
>> > > > > Unless I'm missing something?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks for driving this
>> > > > > Stephane
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Kind regards,
>> > > > > Stephane
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [image: Simple Machines]
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
>> > > > >
>> > > > > +61 416 575 980
>> > > > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
>> > > > > simplemachines.com.au
>> > > > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <
>> t.j.bentley@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and
>> > although
>> > > > > there
>> > > > > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any
>> feedback from
>> > > > > > committers would be appreciated.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Tom
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <
>> ECOMAR@uk.ibm.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the
>> protocol) it
>> > now
>> > > > > > > supersedes KIP-170
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > +1 non-binding
>> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Edoardo Comar
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > IBM Message Hub
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
>> > > > > > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
>> > > > > > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy
>> interfaces
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to
>> > replace
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy
>> interface
>> > that
>> > > > also
>> > > > > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in
>> the
>> > > > > AdminClient.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.
>> com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
>> > > > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
>> > > > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
>> > > > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
>> > > > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=
>> > > tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
>> > > > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp
>> > > > D9517uJkCgrCk&e=
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks for your time.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Tom
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
>> > > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and
>> Wales with
>> > > > > number
>> > > > > > > 741598.
>> > > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
>> > Hampshire
>> > > > PO6
>> > > > > > 3AU
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy interfaces
Posted by Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com>.
This vote has been silent for a few weeks now but I think this would
be a very useful feature.
Did it just slip through busy inboxes or are there reasons why
committers have not voted ?
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a PR for this (https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4281) in case
> anyone wants to look at the implementation in detail, but right now this
> KIP still lacks any committer votes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> On 22 November 2017 at 17:32, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I just wanted to highlight to committers that although this KIP has three
>> non-binding votes, it currently lacks any binding votes: Any feedback would
>> be appreciated.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On 7 November 2017 at 20:42, Stephane Maarek <stephane@simplemachines.com.
>> au> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay makes sense thanks! As you said maybe in the future (or now), it's
>>> worth starting a server java dependency jar that's not called "client".
>>> Probably a debate for another day (
>>>
>>> Tom, crossing fingers to see more votes on this! Good stuff
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/11/17, 9:51 pm, "Ismael Juma" <ismaelj@gmail.com on behalf of
>>> ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> The idea is that you only depend on a Java jar. The core jar includes
>>> the
>>> Scala version in the name and you should not care about that when
>>> implementing a Java interface.
>>>
>>> Ismael
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Stephane Maarek <
>>> stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Thanks !
>>> >
>>> > How about a java folder package in the core then ? It's not a
>>> separate jar
>>> > and it's still java?
>>> >
>>> > Nonetheless I agree these are details. I just got really confused
>>> when
>>> > trying to write my policy and would hope that confusion is not
>>> shared by
>>> > others because it's a "client " class although should only reside
>>> within a
>>> > broker
>>> >
>>> > On 7 Nov. 2017 9:04 pm, "Ismael Juma" <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The location of the policies is fine. Note that the package _does
>>> not_
>>> > include clients in the name. If we ever have enough server side
>>> only code
>>> > to merit a separate JAR, we can do that and it's mostly compatible
>>> (users
>>> > would only have to update their build dependency). Generally, all
>>> public
>>> > APIs going forward will be in Java.
>>> >
>>> > Ismael
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Stephane Maarek <
>>> > stephane@simplemachines.com.au> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi Tom,
>>> > >
>>> > > Regarding the java / scala compilation, I believe this is fine
>>> (the
>>> > > compiler will know), but any reason why you don't want the policy
>>> to be
>>> > > implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer)
>>> > > It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code.
>>> > >
>>> > > Thanks!
>>> > > Stephane
>>> > >
>>> > > Kind regards,
>>> > > Stephane
>>> > >
>>> > > [image: Simple Machines]
>>> > >
>>> > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
>>> > >
>>> > > +61 416 575 980
>>> > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
>>> > > simplemachines.com.au
>>> > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>>> > >
>>> > > On 7 November 2017 at 20:27, Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Hi Stephane,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The vote on this KIP is on-going.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I think it would be OK to make minor changes, but Edoardo and
>>> Mickael
>>> > > would
>>> > > > have to to not disagree with them.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The packages have not been brought up as a problem before now.
>>> I don't
>>> > > know
>>> > > > the reason they're in the client's package, but I agree that
>>> it's not
>>> > > > ideal. To me the situation with the policies is analogous to the
>>> > > situation
>>> > > > with the Authorizer which is in core: They're both broker-side
>>> > extensions
>>> > > > points which users can provide their own implementations of. I
>>> don't
>>> > know
>>> > > > whether the scala compiler is OK compiling interdependent scala
>>> and
>>> > java
>>> > > > code (maybe Ismael knows?), but if it is, I would be happy if
>>> these
>>> > > > server-side policies were moved.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Cheers,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Tom
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On 7 November 2017 at 08:45, Stephane Maarek <
>>> > > stephane@simplemachines.com.
>>> > > > au
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Hi Tom,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > What's the status of this? I was about to create a KIP to
>>> implement a
>>> > > > > SimpleCreateTopicPolicy
>>> > > > > (and Alter, etc...)
>>> > > > > These policies would have some most basic parameter to check
>>> for
>>> > > > > replication factor and min insync replicas (mostly) so that
>>> end users
>>> > > can
>>> > > > > leverage them out of the box. This KIP obviously changes the
>>> > interface
>>> > > so
>>> > > > > I'd like this to be in before I propose my KIP
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I'll add my +1 to this, and hopefully we get quick progress
>>> so I can
>>> > > > > propose my KIP.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Finally, have the packages been discussed?
>>> > > > > I find it extremely awkward to have the current
>>> CreateTopicPolicy
>>> > part
>>> > > of
>>> > > > > the kafka-clients package, and would love to see the next
>>> classes
>>> > > you're
>>> > > > > implementing appear in core/src/main/scala/kafka/policy or
>>> > > > server/policy.
>>> > > > > Unless I'm missing something?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Thanks for driving this
>>> > > > > Stephane
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Kind regards,
>>> > > > > Stephane
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > [image: Simple Machines]
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Stephane Maarek | Developer
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > +61 416 575 980
>>> > > > > stephane@simplemachines.com.au
>>> > > > > simplemachines.com.au
>>> > > > > Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley <
>>> t.j.bentley@gmail.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > It's been two weeks since I started the vote on this KIP and
>>> > although
>>> > > > > there
>>> > > > > > are two votes so far there are no binding votes. Any
>>> feedback from
>>> > > > > > committers would be appreciated.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Thanks,
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Tom
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On 12 October 2017 at 10:09, Edoardo Comar <
>>> ECOMAR@uk.ibm.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Thanks Tom with the last additions (changes to the
>>> protocol) it
>>> > now
>>> > > > > > > supersedes KIP-170
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > +1 non-binding
>>> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Edoardo Comar
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > IBM Message Hub
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > From: Tom Bentley <t....@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
>>> > > > > > > Date: 11/10/2017 09:21
>>> > > > > > > Subject: [VOTE] KIP-201: Rationalising policy
>>> interfaces
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to
>>> > replace
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > > > > existing policy interfaces with a single new policy
>>> interface
>>> > that
>>> > > > also
>>> > > > > > > extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in
>>> the
>>> > > > > AdminClient.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.
>>> com/v2/url?u=https-3A__cwiki.
>>> > > > > > > apache.org_confluence_display_KAFKA_KIP-2D201-253A-
>>> > > > > > > 2BRationalising-2BPolicy-2Binterfaces&d=DwIBaQ&c=jf_
>>> > > > > > iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=
>>> > > > > > > EzRhmSah4IHsUZVekRUIINhltZK7U0OaeRo7hgW4_tQ&m=
>>> > > tE3xo2lmmoCoFZAX60PBT-
>>> > > > > > > J8TBDWcv-tarJyAlgwfJY&s=puFqZ3Ny4Xcdil5A5huwA5WZtS3WZp
>>> > > > D9517uJkCgrCk&e=
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Thanks for your time.
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Tom
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above:
>>> > > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and
>>> Wales with
>>> > > > > number
>>> > > > > > > 741598.
>>> > > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth,
>>> > Hampshire
>>> > > > PO6
>>> > > > > > 3AU
>>> > > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>