You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@kafka.apache.org by Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> on 2017/10/03 05:51:22 UTC
[VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin
Client API
Hi all,
I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like to start the vote for it.
Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
Thanks,
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>.
Ismael +1 ... I'm going to update the name
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 11:44 PM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Cc: Guozhang Wang
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
Looks good to me, one minor comment: I thought DeleteRecords should be
DeletedRecords. That makes it clearer that it's the result of deleting in
my opinion.
Ismael
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Guozhang thanks :-)
>
>
> It's getting late in my timezone, so maybe it's better for me don't take a
> look at email anymore ;)
>
>
> So finally, the KIP-204 was accepted. Waiting for more comments (if
> needed) on the PR for getting it merged.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 11:11 PM
> To: Paolo Patierno
> Cc: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> Paolo,
>
> I have indeed voted +1 on the KIP itself, but I thought you only have two
> binding +1s (Jason and myself); overlooked the vote from Damian and I was
> expecting Ismael to vote.
>
> So I think you are all good now :)
>
>
> Guozhang
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Paolo Patierno <ppatierno@live.com
> <ma...@live.com>> wrote:
> Sorry Guozhang ... reviewing the emails thread I have misunderstood your
> +1 which was not a vote but just about the wiki design.
>
> So the vote is still opened with 2 binding votes and 5 non binding votes.
> ________________________________
> From: Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:21:07 PM
> To: Paolo Patierno
> Cc: dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> I'm not sure if Ismael's reply on the mailing list is a casted vote for
> this KIP.
>
> @Ismael, could you review the KIP again and cast your vote if possible?
>
>
> Guozhang
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Paolo Patierno <ppatierno@live.com
> <ma...@live.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm going to close this vote because this KIP was accepted with :
>
>
> 3 binding votes
>
> 5 non-binding votes
>
>
> Thanks everyone for comments and for voting.
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>>
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:38 AM
> To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> So I have updated the KIP-204<https://cwiki.apache.
> org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+Adding+records+
> deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API> using a DeleteRecords
> class as a wrapper of the low watermark for now.
>
> I have updated the related PR<https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4132>
> as well.
>
>
> Thanks for your comments !
>
>
> Paolo.
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Colin McCabe <co...@cmccabe.xyz>>
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 8:08 PM
> To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> +1 for returning a named object rather than Long.
>
> C.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017, at 10:07, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > Sounds good to me for returning an object than a Long type.
> >
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paolo Patierno <ppatierno@live.com
> <ma...@live.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ismael,
> > >
> > >
> > > yes it makes sense. Taking a look to the other methods in the Admin> >
> Client, there is no use case returning a "simple" type : most of
> > > them are> > Void or complex result represented by classes.
> > >
> > > In order to support future extensibility I like your idea.
> > >
> > > Let's see what's the others opinions otherwise I'll start to
> > > implement in> > such way.
> > >
> > >
> > > I have updated the KIP and the PR using "recordsToDelete"
> > > parameter as> > well.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > Paolo Patierno
> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > >
> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ismaelj@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com> <ismaelj@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Ismael
> > > Juma <> > ismael@juma.me.uk<ma...@juma.me.uk>>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:15 PM
> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to
> > > the new> > Admin Client API
> > >
> > > Paolo,
> > >
> > > You might return the timestamp if the user did a delete by
> > > timestamp for> > example. But let's maybe hear what others think
> before we change
> > > the KIP.> >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paolo Patierno
> > > <pp...@live.com>>> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ismael,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. yes it sounds better. Agree.
> > > > 2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order
> > > > to allow> > > future operations that won't be based only on
> specifying an
> > > > offset. At> > same
> > > > time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e.
> > > > beforeOffset) the> > API
> > > > is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for
> > > > wrapping> > the
> > > > lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the
> > > > future we> > could
> > > > have some other information to bring as part of the delete
> > > > operation ? or> > > just for being clearer in terms of API (so not
> just with a
> > > > comment) ?> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Paolo.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > >
> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>>
> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: ismaelj@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com> <ismaelj@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Ismael
> > > > Juma <> > > ismael@juma.me.uk<ma...@juma.me.uk>>
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM
> > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation
> > > > to the> > new
> > > > Admin Client API
> > > >
> > > > Hi Paolo,
> > > >
> > > > The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
> > > >
> > > > 1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
> > > > 2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is
> > > > `RecordsToDelete`,> > but
> > > > the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be
> > > > `DeleteRecords` or> > > something like that? It could then have a
> field logStartOffset or> > > lowWatermark instead of having to document it
> via a comment only.> > >
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno
> > > > <pp...@live.com>>> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like
> > > > > to> > start
> > > > > the vote for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > > > > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
> > > > > operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > > >
> > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno
> > > > > <http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > > Blog :
> DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
>
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
Looks good to me, one minor comment: I thought DeleteRecords should be
DeletedRecords. That makes it clearer that it's the result of deleting in
my opinion.
Ismael
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Guozhang thanks :-)
>
>
> It's getting late in my timezone, so maybe it's better for me don't take a
> look at email anymore ;)
>
>
> So finally, the KIP-204 was accepted. Waiting for more comments (if
> needed) on the PR for getting it merged.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 11:11 PM
> To: Paolo Patierno
> Cc: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> Paolo,
>
> I have indeed voted +1 on the KIP itself, but I thought you only have two
> binding +1s (Jason and myself); overlooked the vote from Damian and I was
> expecting Ismael to vote.
>
> So I think you are all good now :)
>
>
> Guozhang
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Paolo Patierno <ppatierno@live.com
> <ma...@live.com>> wrote:
> Sorry Guozhang ... reviewing the emails thread I have misunderstood your
> +1 which was not a vote but just about the wiki design.
>
> So the vote is still opened with 2 binding votes and 5 non binding votes.
> ________________________________
> From: Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:21:07 PM
> To: Paolo Patierno
> Cc: dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> I'm not sure if Ismael's reply on the mailing list is a casted vote for
> this KIP.
>
> @Ismael, could you review the KIP again and cast your vote if possible?
>
>
> Guozhang
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Paolo Patierno <ppatierno@live.com
> <ma...@live.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm going to close this vote because this KIP was accepted with :
>
>
> 3 binding votes
>
> 5 non-binding votes
>
>
> Thanks everyone for comments and for voting.
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>>
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:38 AM
> To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> So I have updated the KIP-204<https://cwiki.apache.
> org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+Adding+records+
> deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API> using a DeleteRecords
> class as a wrapper of the low watermark for now.
>
> I have updated the related PR<https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4132>
> as well.
>
>
> Thanks for your comments !
>
>
> Paolo.
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Colin McCabe <co...@cmccabe.xyz>>
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 8:08 PM
> To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> +1 for returning a named object rather than Long.
>
> C.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017, at 10:07, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > Sounds good to me for returning an object than a Long type.
> >
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paolo Patierno <ppatierno@live.com
> <ma...@live.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ismael,
> > >
> > >
> > > yes it makes sense. Taking a look to the other methods in the Admin> >
> Client, there is no use case returning a "simple" type : most of
> > > them are> > Void or complex result represented by classes.
> > >
> > > In order to support future extensibility I like your idea.
> > >
> > > Let's see what's the others opinions otherwise I'll start to
> > > implement in> > such way.
> > >
> > >
> > > I have updated the KIP and the PR using "recordsToDelete"
> > > parameter as> > well.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > Paolo Patierno
> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > >
> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ismaelj@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com> <ismaelj@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Ismael
> > > Juma <> > ismael@juma.me.uk<ma...@juma.me.uk>>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:15 PM
> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to
> > > the new> > Admin Client API
> > >
> > > Paolo,
> > >
> > > You might return the timestamp if the user did a delete by
> > > timestamp for> > example. But let's maybe hear what others think
> before we change
> > > the KIP.> >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paolo Patierno
> > > <pp...@live.com>>> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ismael,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. yes it sounds better. Agree.
> > > > 2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order
> > > > to allow> > > future operations that won't be based only on
> specifying an
> > > > offset. At> > same
> > > > time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e.
> > > > beforeOffset) the> > API
> > > > is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for
> > > > wrapping> > the
> > > > lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the
> > > > future we> > could
> > > > have some other information to bring as part of the delete
> > > > operation ? or> > > just for being clearer in terms of API (so not
> just with a
> > > > comment) ?> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Paolo.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > >
> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>>
> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: ismaelj@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com> <ismaelj@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Ismael
> > > > Juma <> > > ismael@juma.me.uk<ma...@juma.me.uk>>
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM
> > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation
> > > > to the> > new
> > > > Admin Client API
> > > >
> > > > Hi Paolo,
> > > >
> > > > The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
> > > >
> > > > 1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
> > > > 2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is
> > > > `RecordsToDelete`,> > but
> > > > the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be
> > > > `DeleteRecords` or> > > something like that? It could then have a
> field logStartOffset or> > > lowWatermark instead of having to document it
> via a comment only.> > >
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno
> > > > <pp...@live.com>>> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like
> > > > > to> > start
> > > > > the vote for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > > > > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
> > > > > operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > > >
> > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno
> > > > > <http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > > Blog :
> DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
>
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>.
Guozhang thanks :-)
It's getting late in my timezone, so maybe it's better for me don't take a look at email anymore ;)
So finally, the KIP-204 was accepted. Waiting for more comments (if needed) on the PR for getting it merged.
Thanks,
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 11:11 PM
To: Paolo Patierno
Cc: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
Paolo,
I have indeed voted +1 on the KIP itself, but I thought you only have two binding +1s (Jason and myself); overlooked the vote from Damian and I was expecting Ismael to vote.
So I think you are all good now :)
Guozhang
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>> wrote:
Sorry Guozhang ... reviewing the emails thread I have misunderstood your +1 which was not a vote but just about the wiki design.
So the vote is still opened with 2 binding votes and 5 non binding votes.
________________________________
From: Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:21:07 PM
To: Paolo Patierno
Cc: dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
I'm not sure if Ismael's reply on the mailing list is a casted vote for this KIP.
@Ismael, could you review the KIP again and cast your vote if possible?
Guozhang
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm going to close this vote because this KIP was accepted with :
3 binding votes
5 non-binding votes
Thanks everyone for comments and for voting.
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>>
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:38 AM
To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
So I have updated the KIP-204<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+Adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API> using a DeleteRecords class as a wrapper of the low watermark for now.
I have updated the related PR<https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4132> as well.
Thanks for your comments !
Paolo.
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: Colin McCabe <co...@cmccabe.xyz>>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 8:08 PM
To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
+1 for returning a named object rather than Long.
C.
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017, at 10:07, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Sounds good to me for returning an object than a Long type.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Ismael,
> >
> >
> > yes it makes sense. Taking a look to the other methods in the Admin> > Client, there is no use case returning a "simple" type : most of
> > them are> > Void or complex result represented by classes.
> >
> > In order to support future extensibility I like your idea.
> >
> > Let's see what's the others opinions otherwise I'll start to
> > implement in> > such way.
> >
> >
> > I have updated the KIP and the PR using "recordsToDelete"
> > parameter as> > well.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > Paolo Patierno
> > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> >
> > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ismaelj@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com> <is...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Ismael
> > Juma <> > ismael@juma.me.uk<ma...@juma.me.uk>>
> > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:15 PM
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to
> > the new> > Admin Client API
> >
> > Paolo,
> >
> > You might return the timestamp if the user did a delete by
> > timestamp for> > example. But let's maybe hear what others think before we change
> > the KIP.> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paolo Patierno
> > <pp...@live.com>>> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ismael,
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. yes it sounds better. Agree.
> > > 2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order
> > > to allow> > > future operations that won't be based only on specifying an
> > > offset. At> > same
> > > time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e.
> > > beforeOffset) the> > API
> > > is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for
> > > wrapping> > the
> > > lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the
> > > future we> > could
> > > have some other information to bring as part of the delete
> > > operation ? or> > > just for being clearer in terms of API (so not just with a
> > > comment) ?> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Paolo.
> > >
> > >
> > > Paolo Patierno
> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > >
> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ismaelj@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com> <is...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Ismael
> > > Juma <> > > ismael@juma.me.uk<ma...@juma.me.uk>>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM
> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation
> > > to the> > new
> > > Admin Client API
> > >
> > > Hi Paolo,
> > >
> > > The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
> > >
> > > 1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
> > > 2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is
> > > `RecordsToDelete`,> > but
> > > the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be
> > > `DeleteRecords` or> > > something like that? It could then have a field logStartOffset or> > > lowWatermark instead of having to document it via a comment only.> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno
> > > <pp...@live.com>>> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like
> > > > to> > start
> > > > the vote for it.
> > > >
> > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > > > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
> > > > operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > >
> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno
> > > > <http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
--
-- Guozhang
--
-- Guozhang
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
Paolo,
I have indeed voted +1 on the KIP itself, but I thought you only have two
binding +1s (Jason and myself); overlooked the vote from Damian and I was
expecting Ismael to vote.
So I think you are all good now :)
Guozhang
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Sorry Guozhang ... reviewing the emails thread I have misunderstood your
> +1 which was not a vote but just about the wiki design.
>
> So the vote is still opened with 2 binding votes and 5 non binding votes.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 13, 2017 9:21:07 PM
> *To:* Paolo Patierno
> *Cc:* dev@kafka.apache.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the
> new Admin Client API
>
> I'm not sure if Ismael's reply on the mailing list is a casted vote for
> this KIP.
>
> @Ismael, could you review the KIP again and cast your vote if possible?
>
>
> Guozhang
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm going to close this vote because this KIP was accepted with :
>>
>>
>> 3 binding votes
>>
>> 5 non-binding votes
>>
>>
>> Thanks everyone for comments and for voting.
>>
>>
>> *Paolo Patierno*
>>
>> *Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat **Microsoft MVP on **Azure &
>> IoT*
>> *Microsoft Azure Advisor*
>>
>> Twitter : @ppatierno <http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
>> Linkedin : paolopatierno <http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
>> Blog : DevExperience <http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:38 AM
>> *To:* Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the
>> new Admin Client API
>>
>> So I have updated the KIP-204<https://cwiki.apache.o
>> rg/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+Adding+records+delet
>> ion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API> using a DeleteRecords class
>> as a wrapper of the low watermark for now.
>>
>> I have updated the related PR<https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4132>
>> as well.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for your comments !
>>
>>
>> Paolo.
>>
>>
>> Paolo Patierno
>> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
>> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
>> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>>
>> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
>> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
>> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Colin McCabe <co...@cmccabe.xyz>
>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 8:08 PM
>> To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the
>> new Admin Client API
>>
>> +1 for returning a named object rather than Long.
>>
>> C.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017, at 10:07, Guozhang Wang wrote:
>> > Sounds good to me for returning an object than a Long type.
>> >
>> >
>> > Guozhang
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ismael,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > yes it makes sense. Taking a look to the other methods in the Admin>
>> > Client, there is no use case returning a "simple" type : most of
>> > > them are> > Void or complex result represented by classes.
>> > >
>> > > In order to support future extensibility I like your idea.
>> > >
>> > > Let's see what's the others opinions otherwise I'll start to
>> > > implement in> > such way.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I have updated the KIP and the PR using "recordsToDelete"
>> > > parameter as> > well.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Paolo Patierno
>> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
>> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
>> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
>> > >
>> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
>> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
>> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > > From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael
>> > > Juma <> > ismael@juma.me.uk>
>> > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:15 PM
>> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
>> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to
>> > > the new> > Admin Client API
>> > >
>> > > Paolo,
>> > >
>> > > You might return the timestamp if the user did a delete by
>> > > timestamp for> > example. But let's maybe hear what others think
>> before we change
>> > > the KIP.> >
>> > > Ismael
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paolo Patierno
>> > > <pp...@live.com>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Ismael,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. yes it sounds better. Agree.
>> > > > 2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order
>> > > > to allow> > > future operations that won't be based only on
>> specifying an
>> > > > offset. At> > same
>> > > > time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e.
>> > > > beforeOffset) the> > API
>> > > > is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for
>> > > > wrapping> > the
>> > > > lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the
>> > > > future we> > could
>> > > > have some other information to bring as part of the delete
>> > > > operation ? or> > > just for being clearer in terms of API (so not
>> just with a
>> > > > comment) ?> > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Paolo.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Paolo Patierno
>> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
>> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
>> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
>> > > >
>> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
>> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>>
>> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ________________________________
>> > > > From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael
>> > > > Juma <> > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
>> > > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM
>> > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
>> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation
>> > > > to the> > new
>> > > > Admin Client API
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Paolo,
>> > > >
>> > > > The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
>> > > > 2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is
>> > > > `RecordsToDelete`,> > but
>> > > > the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be
>> > > > `DeleteRecords` or> > > something like that? It could then have a
>> field logStartOffset or> > > lowWatermark instead of having to document it
>> via a comment only.> > >
>> > > > Ismael
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno
>> > > > <pp...@live.com>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi all,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like
>> > > > > to> > start
>> > > > > the vote for it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
>> > > > > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
>> > > > > operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Paolo Patierno
>> > > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
>> > > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
>> > > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
>> > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno
>> > > > > <http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > > Blog :
>> DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > -- Guozhang
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
--
-- Guozhang
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>.
Sorry Guozhang ... reviewing the emails thread I have misunderstood your +1 which was not a vote but just about the wiki design.
So the vote is still opened with 2 binding votes and 5 non binding votes.
________________________________
From: Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:21:07 PM
To: Paolo Patierno
Cc: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
I'm not sure if Ismael's reply on the mailing list is a casted vote for this KIP.
@Ismael, could you review the KIP again and cast your vote if possible?
Guozhang
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm going to close this vote because this KIP was accepted with :
3 binding votes
5 non-binding votes
Thanks everyone for comments and for voting.
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>>
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:38 AM
To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
So I have updated the KIP-204<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+Adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API> using a DeleteRecords class as a wrapper of the low watermark for now.
I have updated the related PR<https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4132> as well.
Thanks for your comments !
Paolo.
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: Colin McCabe <co...@cmccabe.xyz>>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 8:08 PM
To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
+1 for returning a named object rather than Long.
C.
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017, at 10:07, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Sounds good to me for returning an object than a Long type.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Ismael,
> >
> >
> > yes it makes sense. Taking a look to the other methods in the Admin> > Client, there is no use case returning a "simple" type : most of
> > them are> > Void or complex result represented by classes.
> >
> > In order to support future extensibility I like your idea.
> >
> > Let's see what's the others opinions otherwise I'll start to
> > implement in> > such way.
> >
> >
> > I have updated the KIP and the PR using "recordsToDelete"
> > parameter as> > well.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > Paolo Patierno
> > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> >
> > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ismaelj@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com> <is...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Ismael
> > Juma <> > ismael@juma.me.uk<ma...@juma.me.uk>>
> > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:15 PM
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to
> > the new> > Admin Client API
> >
> > Paolo,
> >
> > You might return the timestamp if the user did a delete by
> > timestamp for> > example. But let's maybe hear what others think before we change
> > the KIP.> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paolo Patierno
> > <pp...@live.com>>> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ismael,
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. yes it sounds better. Agree.
> > > 2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order
> > > to allow> > > future operations that won't be based only on specifying an
> > > offset. At> > same
> > > time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e.
> > > beforeOffset) the> > API
> > > is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for
> > > wrapping> > the
> > > lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the
> > > future we> > could
> > > have some other information to bring as part of the delete
> > > operation ? or> > > just for being clearer in terms of API (so not just with a
> > > comment) ?> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Paolo.
> > >
> > >
> > > Paolo Patierno
> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > >
> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ismaelj@gmail.com<ma...@gmail.com> <is...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Ismael
> > > Juma <> > > ismael@juma.me.uk<ma...@juma.me.uk>>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM
> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org<ma...@kafka.apache.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation
> > > to the> > new
> > > Admin Client API
> > >
> > > Hi Paolo,
> > >
> > > The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
> > >
> > > 1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
> > > 2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is
> > > `RecordsToDelete`,> > but
> > > the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be
> > > `DeleteRecords` or> > > something like that? It could then have a field logStartOffset or> > > lowWatermark instead of having to document it via a comment only.> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno
> > > <pp...@live.com>>> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like
> > > > to> > start
> > > > the vote for it.
> > > >
> > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > > > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
> > > > operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > >
> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno
> > > > <http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
--
-- Guozhang
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
I'm not sure if Ismael's reply on the mailing list is a casted vote for
this KIP.
@Ismael, could you review the KIP again and cast your vote if possible?
Guozhang
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm going to close this vote because this KIP was accepted with :
>
>
> 3 binding votes
>
> 5 non-binding votes
>
>
> Thanks everyone for comments and for voting.
>
>
> *Paolo Patierno*
>
> *Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat **Microsoft MVP on **Azure &
> IoT*
> *Microsoft Azure Advisor*
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno <http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno <http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience <http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:38 AM
> *To:* Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the
> new Admin Client API
>
> So I have updated the KIP-204<https://cwiki.apache.
> org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+Adding+records+
> deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API> using a DeleteRecords
> class as a wrapper of the low watermark for now.
>
> I have updated the related PR<https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4132>
> as well.
>
>
> Thanks for your comments !
>
>
> Paolo.
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Colin McCabe <co...@cmccabe.xyz>
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 8:08 PM
> To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> +1 for returning a named object rather than Long.
>
> C.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017, at 10:07, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > Sounds good to me for returning an object than a Long type.
> >
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ismael,
> > >
> > >
> > > yes it makes sense. Taking a look to the other methods in the Admin> >
> Client, there is no use case returning a "simple" type : most of
> > > them are> > Void or complex result represented by classes.
> > >
> > > In order to support future extensibility I like your idea.
> > >
> > > Let's see what's the others opinions otherwise I'll start to
> > > implement in> > such way.
> > >
> > >
> > > I have updated the KIP and the PR using "recordsToDelete"
> > > parameter as> > well.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > Paolo Patierno
> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > >
> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael
> > > Juma <> > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:15 PM
> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to
> > > the new> > Admin Client API
> > >
> > > Paolo,
> > >
> > > You might return the timestamp if the user did a delete by
> > > timestamp for> > example. But let's maybe hear what others think
> before we change
> > > the KIP.> >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paolo Patierno
> > > <pp...@live.com>> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ismael,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. yes it sounds better. Agree.
> > > > 2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order
> > > > to allow> > > future operations that won't be based only on
> specifying an
> > > > offset. At> > same
> > > > time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e.
> > > > beforeOffset) the> > API
> > > > is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for
> > > > wrapping> > the
> > > > lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the
> > > > future we> > could
> > > > have some other information to bring as part of the delete
> > > > operation ? or> > > just for being clearer in terms of API (so not
> just with a
> > > > comment) ?> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Paolo.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > >
> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>>
> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael
> > > > Juma <> > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM
> > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation
> > > > to the> > new
> > > > Admin Client API
> > > >
> > > > Hi Paolo,
> > > >
> > > > The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
> > > >
> > > > 1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
> > > > 2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is
> > > > `RecordsToDelete`,> > but
> > > > the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be
> > > > `DeleteRecords` or> > > something like that? It could then have a
> field logStartOffset or> > > lowWatermark instead of having to document it
> via a comment only.> > >
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno
> > > > <pp...@live.com>> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like
> > > > > to> > start
> > > > > the vote for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > > > > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
> > > > > operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > > >
> > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno
> > > > > <http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > > Blog :
> DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
>
>
--
-- Guozhang
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>.
Hi all,
I'm going to close this vote because this KIP was accepted with :
3 binding votes
5 non-binding votes
Thanks everyone for comments and for voting.
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:38 AM
To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
So I have updated the KIP-204<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+Adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API> using a DeleteRecords class as a wrapper of the low watermark for now.
I have updated the related PR<https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4132> as well.
Thanks for your comments !
Paolo.
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: Colin McCabe <co...@cmccabe.xyz>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 8:08 PM
To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
+1 for returning a named object rather than Long.
C.
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017, at 10:07, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Sounds good to me for returning an object than a Long type.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ismael,
> >
> >
> > yes it makes sense. Taking a look to the other methods in the Admin> > Client, there is no use case returning a "simple" type : most of
> > them are> > Void or complex result represented by classes.
> >
> > In order to support future extensibility I like your idea.
> >
> > Let's see what's the others opinions otherwise I'll start to
> > implement in> > such way.
> >
> >
> > I have updated the KIP and the PR using "recordsToDelete"
> > parameter as> > well.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > Paolo Patierno
> > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> >
> > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael
> > Juma <> > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:15 PM
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to
> > the new> > Admin Client API
> >
> > Paolo,
> >
> > You might return the timestamp if the user did a delete by
> > timestamp for> > example. But let's maybe hear what others think before we change
> > the KIP.> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paolo Patierno
> > <pp...@live.com>> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ismael,
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. yes it sounds better. Agree.
> > > 2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order
> > > to allow> > > future operations that won't be based only on specifying an
> > > offset. At> > same
> > > time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e.
> > > beforeOffset) the> > API
> > > is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for
> > > wrapping> > the
> > > lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the
> > > future we> > could
> > > have some other information to bring as part of the delete
> > > operation ? or> > > just for being clearer in terms of API (so not just with a
> > > comment) ?> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Paolo.
> > >
> > >
> > > Paolo Patierno
> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > >
> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael
> > > Juma <> > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM
> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation
> > > to the> > new
> > > Admin Client API
> > >
> > > Hi Paolo,
> > >
> > > The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
> > >
> > > 1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
> > > 2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is
> > > `RecordsToDelete`,> > but
> > > the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be
> > > `DeleteRecords` or> > > something like that? It could then have a field logStartOffset or> > > lowWatermark instead of having to document it via a comment only.> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno
> > > <pp...@live.com>> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like
> > > > to> > start
> > > > the vote for it.
> > > >
> > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > > > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
> > > > operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > >
> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno
> > > > <http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>.
So I have updated the KIP-204<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+Adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API> using a DeleteRecords class as a wrapper of the low watermark for now.
I have updated the related PR<https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4132> as well.
Thanks for your comments !
Paolo.
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: Colin McCabe <co...@cmccabe.xyz>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 8:08 PM
To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
+1 for returning a named object rather than Long.
C.
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017, at 10:07, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Sounds good to me for returning an object than a Long type.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ismael,
> >
> >
> > yes it makes sense. Taking a look to the other methods in the Admin> > Client, there is no use case returning a "simple" type : most of
> > them are> > Void or complex result represented by classes.
> >
> > In order to support future extensibility I like your idea.
> >
> > Let's see what's the others opinions otherwise I'll start to
> > implement in> > such way.
> >
> >
> > I have updated the KIP and the PR using "recordsToDelete"
> > parameter as> > well.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > Paolo Patierno
> > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> >
> > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael
> > Juma <> > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:15 PM
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to
> > the new> > Admin Client API
> >
> > Paolo,
> >
> > You might return the timestamp if the user did a delete by
> > timestamp for> > example. But let's maybe hear what others think before we change
> > the KIP.> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paolo Patierno
> > <pp...@live.com>> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ismael,
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. yes it sounds better. Agree.
> > > 2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order
> > > to allow> > > future operations that won't be based only on specifying an
> > > offset. At> > same
> > > time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e.
> > > beforeOffset) the> > API
> > > is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for
> > > wrapping> > the
> > > lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the
> > > future we> > could
> > > have some other information to bring as part of the delete
> > > operation ? or> > > just for being clearer in terms of API (so not just with a
> > > comment) ?> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Paolo.
> > >
> > >
> > > Paolo Patierno
> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > >
> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael
> > > Juma <> > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM
> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation
> > > to the> > new
> > > Admin Client API
> > >
> > > Hi Paolo,
> > >
> > > The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
> > >
> > > 1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
> > > 2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is
> > > `RecordsToDelete`,> > but
> > > the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be
> > > `DeleteRecords` or> > > something like that? It could then have a field logStartOffset or> > > lowWatermark instead of having to document it via a comment only.> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno
> > > <pp...@live.com>> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like
> > > > to> > start
> > > > the vote for it.
> > > >
> > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > > > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
> > > > operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > >
> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno
> > > > <http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin
Client API
Posted by Colin McCabe <co...@cmccabe.xyz>.
+1 for returning a named object rather than Long.
C.
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017, at 10:07, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Sounds good to me for returning an object than a Long type.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ismael,
> >
> >
> > yes it makes sense. Taking a look to the other methods in the Admin> > Client, there is no use case returning a "simple" type : most of
> > them are> > Void or complex result represented by classes.
> >
> > In order to support future extensibility I like your idea.
> >
> > Let's see what's the others opinions otherwise I'll start to
> > implement in> > such way.
> >
> >
> > I have updated the KIP and the PR using "recordsToDelete"
> > parameter as> > well.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > Paolo Patierno
> > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> >
> > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael
> > Juma <> > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:15 PM
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to
> > the new> > Admin Client API
> >
> > Paolo,
> >
> > You might return the timestamp if the user did a delete by
> > timestamp for> > example. But let's maybe hear what others think before we change
> > the KIP.> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paolo Patierno
> > <pp...@live.com>> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ismael,
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. yes it sounds better. Agree.
> > > 2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order
> > > to allow> > > future operations that won't be based only on specifying an
> > > offset. At> > same
> > > time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e.
> > > beforeOffset) the> > API
> > > is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for
> > > wrapping> > the
> > > lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the
> > > future we> > could
> > > have some other information to bring as part of the delete
> > > operation ? or> > > just for being clearer in terms of API (so not just with a
> > > comment) ?> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Paolo.
> > >
> > >
> > > Paolo Patierno
> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > >
> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael
> > > Juma <> > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM
> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation
> > > to the> > new
> > > Admin Client API
> > >
> > > Hi Paolo,
> > >
> > > The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
> > >
> > > 1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
> > > 2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is
> > > `RecordsToDelete`,> > but
> > > the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be
> > > `DeleteRecords` or> > > something like that? It could then have a field logStartOffset or> > > lowWatermark instead of having to document it via a comment only.> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno
> > > <pp...@live.com>> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like
> > > > to> > start
> > > > the vote for it.
> > > >
> > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > > > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
> > > > operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > >
> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno
> > > > <http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good to me for returning an object than a Long type.
Guozhang
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Ismael,
>
>
> yes it makes sense. Taking a look to the other methods in the Admin
> Client, there is no use case returning a "simple" type : most of them are
> Void or complex result represented by classes.
>
> In order to support future extensibility I like your idea.
>
> Let's see what's the others opinions otherwise I'll start to implement in
> such way.
>
>
> I have updated the KIP and the PR using "recordsToDelete" parameter as
> well.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael Juma <
> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:15 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> Paolo,
>
> You might return the timestamp if the user did a delete by timestamp for
> example. But let's maybe hear what others think before we change the KIP.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ismael,
> >
> >
> > 1. yes it sounds better. Agree.
> > 2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order to allow
> > future operations that won't be based only on specifying an offset. At
> same
> > time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e. beforeOffset) the
> API
> > is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for wrapping
> the
> > lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the future we
> could
> > have some other information to bring as part of the delete operation ? or
> > just for being clearer in terms of API (so not just with a comment) ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paolo.
> >
> >
> > Paolo Patierno
> > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> >
> > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael Juma <
> > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the
> new
> > Admin Client API
> >
> > Hi Paolo,
> >
> > The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
> >
> > 1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
> > 2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is `RecordsToDelete`,
> but
> > the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be `DeleteRecords` or
> > something like that? It could then have a field logStartOffset or
> > lowWatermark instead of having to document it via a comment only.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like to
> start
> > > the vote for it.
> > >
> > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
> > > operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Paolo Patierno
> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > >
> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > >
> >
>
--
-- Guozhang
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>.
Ismael,
yes it makes sense. Taking a look to the other methods in the Admin Client, there is no use case returning a "simple" type : most of them are Void or complex result represented by classes.
In order to support future extensibility I like your idea.
Let's see what's the others opinions otherwise I'll start to implement in such way.
I have updated the KIP and the PR using "recordsToDelete" parameter as well.
Thanks
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:15 PM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
Paolo,
You might return the timestamp if the user did a delete by timestamp for
example. But let's maybe hear what others think before we change the KIP.
Ismael
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Hi Ismael,
>
>
> 1. yes it sounds better. Agree.
> 2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order to allow
> future operations that won't be based only on specifying an offset. At same
> time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e. beforeOffset) the API
> is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for wrapping the
> lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the future we could
> have some other information to bring as part of the delete operation ? or
> just for being clearer in terms of API (so not just with a comment) ?
>
> Thanks,
> Paolo.
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael Juma <
> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
>
> 1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
> 2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is `RecordsToDelete`, but
> the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be `DeleteRecords` or
> something like that? It could then have a field logStartOffset or
> lowWatermark instead of having to document it via a comment only.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like to start
> > the vote for it.
> >
> > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
> > operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Paolo Patierno
> > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> >
> > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
Paolo,
You might return the timestamp if the user did a delete by timestamp for
example. But let's maybe hear what others think before we change the KIP.
Ismael
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Hi Ismael,
>
>
> 1. yes it sounds better. Agree.
> 2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order to allow
> future operations that won't be based only on specifying an offset. At same
> time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e. beforeOffset) the API
> is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for wrapping the
> lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the future we could
> have some other information to bring as part of the delete operation ? or
> just for being clearer in terms of API (so not just with a comment) ?
>
> Thanks,
> Paolo.
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael Juma <
> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
>
> 1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
> 2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is `RecordsToDelete`, but
> the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be `DeleteRecords` or
> something like that? It could then have a field logStartOffset or
> lowWatermark instead of having to document it via a comment only.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like to start
> > the vote for it.
> >
> > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
> > operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Paolo Patierno
> > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> >
> > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>.
Hi Ismael,
1. yes it sounds better. Agree.
2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order to allow future operations that won't be based only on specifying an offset. At same time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e. beforeOffset) the API is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for wrapping the lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the future we could have some other information to bring as part of the delete operation ? or just for being clearer in terms of API (so not just with a comment) ?
Thanks,
Paolo.
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: ismaelj@gmail.com <is...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
Hi Paolo,
The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is `RecordsToDelete`, but
the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be `DeleteRecords` or
something like that? It could then have a field logStartOffset or
lowWatermark instead of having to document it via a comment only.
Ismael
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like to start
> the vote for it.
>
> Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
> operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>.
Hi Paolo,
The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments:
1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`.
2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is `RecordsToDelete`, but
the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be `DeleteRecords` or
something like that? It could then have a field logStartOffset or
lowWatermark instead of having to document it via a comment only.
Ismael
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like to start
> the vote for it.
>
> Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+
> operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Damian Guy <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding) - thanks
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 15:14 Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Because Guozhang and Colin are doing a great job on reviewing the related
> PR and we are really close to have it in a decent/final shape, what do the
> other committers think about this KIP ?
>
> We are stuck at 2 binding votes (and something like 5 non binding). We
> need last binding vote for having the KIP got accepted and we can start to
> think about merging the PR for a future 1.1.0 release.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Kamal <ka...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:26 AM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Jason !
> >
> >
> > I have just updated the KIP with DeleteRecordsOptions definition.
> >
> >
> > Paolo Patierno
> > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> >
> > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 10:09 PM
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the
> new
> > Admin Client API
> >
> > +1 (binding). Just one nit: the KIP doesn't define the
> DeleteRecordsOptions
> > object. I see it's empty in the PR, but we may as well document the full
> > API in the KIP.
> >
> > -Jason
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Made a pass over the PR and left some comments. I'm +1 on the wiki
> design
> > > page as well.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Bill Bejeck <bb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > because I don't see any further discussion around KIP-204 (
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > > 204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+
> > Admin+Client+API)
> > > > > and I have already opened a PR with the implementation, can we
> > re-cover
> > > > the
> > > > > vote started on October 18 ?
> > > > >
> > > > > There are only "non binding" votes up to now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > > >
> > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Viktor Somogyi <vi...@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 10:49 AM
> > > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to
> > the
> > > > new
> > > > > Admin Client API
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 (non-binding)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Manikumar <
> > manikumar.reddy@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > + (non-binding)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Manikumar
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Dong Lin <li...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. +1 (non-binding)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Paolo Patierno <
> > > > ppatierno@live.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd
> > > like
> > > > to
> > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > the vote for it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+
> > > > > > > > > deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > > > > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > > > > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > > > > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > > > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.
> > > linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- Guozhang
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>.
Because Guozhang and Colin are doing a great job on reviewing the related PR and we are really close to have it in a decent/final shape, what do the other committers think about this KIP ?
We are stuck at 2 binding votes (and something like 5 non binding). We need last binding vote for having the KIP got accepted and we can start to think about merging the PR for a future 1.1.0 release.
Thanks,
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: Kamal <ka...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 1:26 AM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
+1 (non-binding)
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Thanks Jason !
>
>
> I have just updated the KIP with DeleteRecordsOptions definition.
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 10:09 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> +1 (binding). Just one nit: the KIP doesn't define the DeleteRecordsOptions
> object. I see it's empty in the PR, but we may as well document the full
> API in the KIP.
>
> -Jason
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Made a pass over the PR and left some comments. I'm +1 on the wiki design
> > page as well.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Bill Bejeck <bb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > because I don't see any further discussion around KIP-204 (
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > 204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+
> Admin+Client+API)
> > > > and I have already opened a PR with the implementation, can we
> re-cover
> > > the
> > > > vote started on October 18 ?
> > > >
> > > > There are only "non binding" votes up to now.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > >
> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Viktor Somogyi <vi...@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 10:49 AM
> > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to
> the
> > > new
> > > > Admin Client API
> > > >
> > > > +1 (non-binding)
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Manikumar <
> manikumar.reddy@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > + (non-binding)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Manikumar
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Dong Lin <li...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. +1 (non-binding)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Paolo Patierno <
> > > ppatierno@live.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd
> > like
> > > to
> > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > the vote for it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+
> > > > > > > > deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > > > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > > > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > > > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.
> > linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Kamal <ka...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Thanks Jason !
>
>
> I have just updated the KIP with DeleteRecordsOptions definition.
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 10:09 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> +1 (binding). Just one nit: the KIP doesn't define the DeleteRecordsOptions
> object. I see it's empty in the PR, but we may as well document the full
> API in the KIP.
>
> -Jason
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Made a pass over the PR and left some comments. I'm +1 on the wiki design
> > page as well.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Bill Bejeck <bb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > because I don't see any further discussion around KIP-204 (
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > 204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+
> Admin+Client+API)
> > > > and I have already opened a PR with the implementation, can we
> re-cover
> > > the
> > > > vote started on October 18 ?
> > > >
> > > > There are only "non binding" votes up to now.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > >
> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Viktor Somogyi <vi...@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 10:49 AM
> > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to
> the
> > > new
> > > > Admin Client API
> > > >
> > > > +1 (non-binding)
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Manikumar <
> manikumar.reddy@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > + (non-binding)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Manikumar
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Dong Lin <li...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. +1 (non-binding)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Paolo Patierno <
> > > ppatierno@live.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd
> > like
> > > to
> > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > the vote for it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+
> > > > > > > > deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > > > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > > > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > > > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.
> > linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>.
Thanks Jason !
I have just updated the KIP with DeleteRecordsOptions definition.
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>
Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 10:09 PM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
+1 (binding). Just one nit: the KIP doesn't define the DeleteRecordsOptions
object. I see it's empty in the PR, but we may as well document the full
API in the KIP.
-Jason
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Made a pass over the PR and left some comments. I'm +1 on the wiki design
> page as well.
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Bill Bejeck <bb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > >
> > > because I don't see any further discussion around KIP-204 (
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > 204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API)
> > > and I have already opened a PR with the implementation, can we re-cover
> > the
> > > vote started on October 18 ?
> > >
> > > There are only "non binding" votes up to now.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > > Paolo Patierno
> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > >
> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Viktor Somogyi <vi...@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 10:49 AM
> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the
> > new
> > > Admin Client API
> > >
> > > +1 (non-binding)
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Manikumar <ma...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > + (non-binding)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Manikumar
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Dong Lin <li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the KIP. +1 (non-binding)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Paolo Patierno <
> > ppatierno@live.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd
> like
> > to
> > > > > start
> > > > > > > the vote for it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+
> > > > > > > deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.
> linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno
> > >
> > > > > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io>.
+1 (binding). Just one nit: the KIP doesn't define the DeleteRecordsOptions
object. I see it's empty in the PR, but we may as well document the full
API in the KIP.
-Jason
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Made a pass over the PR and left some comments. I'm +1 on the wiki design
> page as well.
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Bill Bejeck <bb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > >
> > > because I don't see any further discussion around KIP-204 (
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > 204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API)
> > > and I have already opened a PR with the implementation, can we re-cover
> > the
> > > vote started on October 18 ?
> > >
> > > There are only "non binding" votes up to now.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > > Paolo Patierno
> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > >
> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Viktor Somogyi <vi...@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 10:49 AM
> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the
> > new
> > > Admin Client API
> > >
> > > +1 (non-binding)
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Manikumar <ma...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > + (non-binding)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Manikumar
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Dong Lin <li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the KIP. +1 (non-binding)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Paolo Patierno <
> > ppatierno@live.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd
> like
> > to
> > > > > start
> > > > > > > the vote for it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+
> > > > > > > deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.
> linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno
> > >
> > > > > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Guozhang Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
Made a pass over the PR and left some comments. I'm +1 on the wiki design
page as well.
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Bill Bejeck <bb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> > because I don't see any further discussion around KIP-204 (
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > 204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API)
> > and I have already opened a PR with the implementation, can we re-cover
> the
> > vote started on October 18 ?
> >
> > There are only "non binding" votes up to now.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Paolo Patierno
> > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> >
> > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Viktor Somogyi <vi...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 10:49 AM
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the
> new
> > Admin Client API
> >
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Manikumar <ma...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > + (non-binding)
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Manikumar
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Dong Lin <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the KIP. +1 (non-binding)
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Paolo Patierno <
> ppatierno@live.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like
> to
> > > > start
> > > > > > the vote for it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+
> > > > > > deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno
> >
> > > > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
-- Guozhang
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Bill Bejeck <bb...@gmail.com>.
+1
Thanks,
Bill
On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> because I don't see any further discussion around KIP-204 (
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> 204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API)
> and I have already opened a PR with the implementation, can we re-cover the
> vote started on October 18 ?
>
> There are only "non binding" votes up to now.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Viktor Somogyi <vi...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 10:49 AM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
> Admin Client API
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Manikumar <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > + (non-binding)
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Manikumar
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Dong Lin <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the KIP. +1 (non-binding)
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like to
> > > start
> > > > > the vote for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+
> > > > > deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > > >
> > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>.
Hi all,
because I don't see any further discussion around KIP-204 (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API) and I have already opened a PR with the implementation, can we re-cover the vote started on October 18 ?
There are only "non binding" votes up to now.
Thanks,
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: Viktor Somogyi <vi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 10:49 AM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Manikumar <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> + (non-binding)
>
>
> Thanks,
> Manikumar
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Dong Lin <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the KIP. +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like to
> > start
> > > > the vote for it.
> > > >
> > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+
> > > > deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > >
> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Viktor Somogyi <vi...@gmail.com>.
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Manikumar <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> + (non-binding)
>
>
> Thanks,
> Manikumar
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Dong Lin <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the KIP. +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like to
> > start
> > > > the vote for it.
> > > >
> > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+
> > > > deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Paolo Patierno
> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > > >
> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Manikumar <ma...@gmail.com>.
+ (non-binding)
Thanks,
Manikumar
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Dong Lin <li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP. +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like to
> start
> > > the vote for it.
> > >
> > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+
> > > deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Paolo Patierno
> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> > >
> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Dong Lin <li...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the KIP. +1 (non-binding)
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like to start
> > the vote for it.
> >
> > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+
> > deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Paolo Patierno
> > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> > Microsoft Azure Advisor
> >
> > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Ted Yu <yu...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like to start
> the vote for it.
>
> Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/
> confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+
> deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo Patierno
> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
>
Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new
Admin Client API
Posted by Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>.
Hi all,
since I started voting KIP-204 on October 3rd I haven't seen any votes on that. I know you are busy on 1.0.0 release, just as reminder ....
Thanks.
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>
________________________________
From: Paolo Patierno <pp...@live.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 5:51 AM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the new Admin Client API
Hi all,
I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like to start the vote for it.
Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API
Thanks,
Paolo Patierno
Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
Microsoft Azure Advisor
Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/>