kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-108: Create Topic Policy
Date Tue, 30 May 2017 21:19:54 GMT
Hey Ismael,

Thanks for the KIP. This is definitely useful.

Does the KIP apply the topic creation policy to ZK-based topic creation? If
not, which seems to be the case from my understanding, should we have a new
broker config to disable ZK-based topic creation? This seems necessary to
prevent user from using stray builds to evade the topic creation policy.

Thanks,
Dong






On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Roger Hoover <roger.hoover@gmail.com> wrote:

> Got it.  Thanks, Ismael.
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hi Roger,
> >
> > That's a good question. The server defaults are passed via the
> `configure`
> > method of the `Configurable` interface that is implemented by
> > `CreateTopicPolicy`. I'll mention this explicitly in the KIP.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Roger Hoover <roger.hoover@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is great.  Thanks, Ismael.
> > >
> > > One question.  When TopicDetails are passed to the policy
> implementation,
> > > would the server defaults already have been merged?  If not, I think
> the
> > > policy also needs access to the server defaults.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Roger
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the review Jun. Yes, that's a good point, I have updated
> the
> > > > KIP.
> > > >
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Jun Rao <jun@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, Ismael,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the KIP. Looks reasonable to me. To be consistent with
> the
> > > > > pattern used in other pluggable interfaces, we probably should make
> > the
> > > > new
> > > > > interface configurable and closable?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jun
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks Dan and Colin for the feedback. I updated the KIP to
> include
> > > the
> > > > > > addition of a validation mode. Since we need to bump the protocol
> > > > version
> > > > > > for that, I also added an error message per topic to the
> response.
> > I
> > > > had
> > > > > > the latter as "Future Work", but I actually felt that it should
> be
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > first version (good to have feedback confirming that).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let me know if the changes look good to you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Colin McCabe <cmccabe@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah, I agree... having a validation mode would be nice.
 We
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > explicit that passing validation doesn't 100% guarantee
that a
> > > > > > > subsequent call to create the topic will succeed, though.
> There
> > is
> > > > an
> > > > > > > obvious race condition there-- for example, with a plugin
which
> > > > > consults
> > > > > > > some external authentication system, there could be a change
to
> > the
> > > > > > > privileges in between validation and attempted creation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It also seems like we should try to provide a helpful exception
> > > > message
> > > > > > > for the cases where topic creation fails.  This might involve
> > > adding
> > > > > > > more detail about error conditions to CreateTopicsRequest...
> > right
> > > > now
> > > > > > > it just returns an error code, but a text message would
be a
> nice
> > > > > > > addition.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > cheers,
> > > > > > > Colin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017, at 13:41, dan wrote:
> > > > > > > > it would be nice to have a dry-run or validate ability
added
> to
> > > > this
> > > > > > kip.
> > > > > > > > since we are offloading validation to a 3rd party
> implementor a
> > > > > random
> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > can't know a priori (based solely on kafka configs)
whether a
> > > call
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > succeed without actually creating the topic.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > a similar case is in connect where there is a separate
> endpoint
> > > > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/connect/
> > > > > > > runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/connect/runtime/rest/
> > > > resources/
> > > > > > > ConnectorPluginsResource.java#L49-L58>
> > > > > > > > to attempt to validate a connect configuration without
> actually
> > > > > > creating
> > > > > > > > the connector.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > > > dan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Ismael Juma <
> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We've posted "KIP-108: Create Topic Policy" for
discussion:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > > > > > > 108%3A+Create+Topic+Policy
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please take a look. Your feedback is appreciated.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message