Mailing-List: contact dev-help@kafka.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@kafka.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD5tkZZsL=cYnpWRA1-ooYoPTFOt1+rT_GsDxEcQfZzRTBfxQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+OCqnb7ByPAHP1twm4aZpLTFDb7M2HzSUzj7X7asu2ptj=96A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD5tkZatxhj-QuB539UE7VXd1Yhwermk9NL8zmr+Gs4MTMZQUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <OF82C9E4A6.C221000E-ON0025810D.005B26E8-8825810D.005B664D@notes.na.collabserv.com>
 <98DED756-C649-40DE-B635-B6CB51B4293F@gmail.com> <CA+OCqnZw6pGraCNuQ1mt_YPZ-udy1SbXA1DU4W20oZPO8Ni-Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD5tkZbNx_mE0NOzoiBnpzgeb9qoB_atZZzjGG3+90L6LwSDhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE1jLMOMhwG9W75GgW1hpRjfeeVF4Ur+SmkVcKK8H+a2PK2G+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5tkZZsL=cYnpWRA1-ooYoPTFOt1+rT_GsDxEcQfZzRTBfxQA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mickael Maison <mickael.maison@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 18:22:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+OCqnZbjF9eVSJ=A3m5WpdS4RFs5gXLmhrboKt0+SMwzqLM7A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-137: Enhance TopicCommand --describe to show topics
 marked for deletion
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
archived-at: Wed, 03 May 2017 17:23:23 -0000

Yes it's what I was thinking when writing this up, JSON output would
be nice. I'll be happy to have a look at it. I'm guessing that would
require another KIP ?

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> Yeah, structured output for the CLI tools would be great. 3 digit number
> JIRA, nice. :)
>
> Ismael
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava <ewen@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Since everything is whitespace delimited anyway, I don't think we should
>> worry about the compatibility issue. We don't guarantee this unstructured
>> output format. I think it is fine to say that any parser that doesn't do
>> something straightforward and reliable like splitting the line by
>> whitespace then checking the : prefixed value to determine if it is usable
>> is ok to break.
>>
>> Long term, we should really just get more structured output formats for the
>> command line tools, a la https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-313.
>>
>> -Ewen
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Right, the reason for inserting it before the configs is that
>> > MarkedForDeletion is a fixed length field while configs is a variable
>> > length field. The fact that MarkedForDeletion is optional and typically
>> not
>> > set means that it's also justifiable to place it after the configs. So,
>> I'm
>> > OK either way.
>> >
>> > Ismael
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Mickael Maison <
>> mickael.maison@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks for the feedback.
>> > >
>> > > I had the same thinking as James. Also we plan to only add the
>> > > MarkedForDeletion field for topics pending deletion as the output of
>> > > --describe is already pretty dense and most topics are never pending
>> > > deletion.
>> > >
>> > > The only reason I came up to insert it in the middle is if Configs is
>> > > long, then MarkedForDeletion could be pushed on a new line/off-screen.
>> > > Am I missing something ?
>> > >
>> > > That said, I don't have a strong opinion about it and if most people
>> > > prefer it the other way around I'll be happy to update the KIP.
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:25 AM, James Cheng <wushujames@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > Having "MarkedForDeletion" before "Configs" may break anyone who is
>> > > parsing this output, since they may be expecting the 4th string to be
>> > > "Configs".
>> > > >
>> > > > I know that the Compatibility section already says that people
>> parsing
>> > > this may have to adjust their parsing logic, so maybe that covers my
>> > > concern already. But inserting the new MarkedForDeletion word into the
>> > > middle of the string seems like it'll break parsing more than just
>> > adding a
>> > > new value at the end.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm fine either way, though.
>> > > >
>> > > > -James
>> > > >
>> > > >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:38 AM, Vahid S Hashemian <
>> > > vahidhashemian@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks for the KIP Mickael.
>> > > >> Looks good. I also prefer 'MarkedForDeletion' before 'Configs'.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --Vahid
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> From:   Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk>
>> > > >> To:     dev@kafka.apache.org
>> > > >> Date:   04/25/2017 04:15 AM
>> > > >> Subject:        Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-137: Enhance TopicCommand
>> --describe
>> > > to
>> > > >> show topics marked for deletion
>> > > >> Sent by:        ismaelj@gmail.com
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks for the KIP. Would it make sense for MarkedForDeletion to be
>> > > before
>> > > >> `Configs`? I can see arguments both ways, so I was wondering what
>> your
>> > > >> thoughts were?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Ismael
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Mickael Maison <
>> > > mickael.maison@gmail.com>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Hi all,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> We created KIP-137: Enhance TopicCommand --describe to show topics
>> > > >>> marked for deletion
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>> > > >>>
>> > > >> 137%3A+Enhance+TopicCommand+--describe+to+show+topics+marked
>> > > +for+deletion
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Please help review the KIP. You feedback is appreciated!
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Thanks
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>