kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-210: Provide for custom error handling when Kafka Streams fails to produce
Date Sat, 04 Nov 2017 17:03:46 GMT
Ah. I actually created both of those in the PR and forgot to mention them
by name in the KIP! Thanks for pointing out the oversight.

I’ll revise the KIP this afternoon accordingly.

The logging is actually provided for in the record collector. Whenever a
handler continues it’ll log a warning to ensure that it’s *impossible* to
write a handler that totally suppresses production exceptions from the log.
As such, the default continue handler just returns the continue value. I
can add details about those semantics to the KIP as well.
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:46 PM Matthias J. Sax <matthias@confluent.io>
wrote:

> One more comment.
>
> You mention a default implementation for the handler that fails. I
> think, this should be part of the public API and thus should have a
> proper defined named that is mentioned in the KIP.
>
> We could also add a second implementation for the log-and-move-on
> strategy, as both are the two most common cases. This class should also
> be part of public API (so users can just set in the config) with a
> proper name.
>
>
> Otherwise, I like the KIP a lot! Thanks.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
>
> On 11/1/17 12:23 AM, Matt Farmer wrote:
> > Thanks for the heads up. Yes, I think my changes are compatible with that
> > PR, but there will be a merge conflict that happens whenever one of the
> PRs
> > is merged. Happy to reconcile the changes in my PR if 4148 goes in
> first. :)
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 6:44 PM Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> That sounds reasonable, thanks Matt.
> >>
> >> As for the implementation, please note that there is another ongoing PR
> >> that may touch the same classes that you are working on:
> >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4148
> >>
> >> So it may help if you can also take a look at that PR and see if it is
> >> compatible with your changes.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Guozhang
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Matt Farmer <matt@frmr.me> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've opened this pull request to implement the KIP as currently
> written:
> >>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4165. It still needs some tests
> >>> added,
> >>> but largely represents the shape I was going for.
> >>>
> >>> If there are more points that folks would like to discuss, please let
> me
> >>> know. If I don't hear anything by tomorrow afternoon I'll probably
> start
> >> a
> >>> [VOTE] thread.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Matt
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:33 PM Matt Farmer <matt@frmr.me> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I can’t think of a reason that would be problematic.
> >>>>
> >>>> Most of the time I would write a handler like this, I either want to
> >>>> ignore the error or fail and bring everything down so that I can spin
> >> it
> >>>> back up later and resume from earlier offsets. When we start up after
> >>>> crashing we’ll eventually try to process the message we failed to
> >> produce
> >>>> again.
> >>>>
> >>>> I’m concerned that “putting in a queue for later” opens you up
to
> >> putting
> >>>> messages into the destination topic in an unexpected order. However
if
> >>>> others feel differently, I’m happy to talk about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:10 PM Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that
the
> >>> record
> >>>>>> metadata is always null if an exception occurred while trying
to
> >>>>> produce.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is right. Thanks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I looked at the example code, and one thing I realized that since
we
> >> are
> >>>>> not passing the context in the handle function, we may not be
> >> implement
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> logic to send the fail records into another queue for future
> >> processing.
> >>>>> Would people think that would be a big issue?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Guozhang
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Matt Farmer <matt@frmr.me>
wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've updated the KIP based on this conversation, and made it
so that
> >>> its
> >>>>>> interface, config setting, and parameters line up more closely
with
> >>> the
> >>>>>> interface in KIP-161 (deserialization handler).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I believe there are a few specific questions I need to reply
to.....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The question I had about then handle parameters are around
the
> >>> record,
> >>>>>>> should it be `ProducerRecord<byte[], byte[]>`, or
be generics of
> >>>>>>> `ProducerRecord<? extends K, ? extends V>` or `ProducerRecord<?
> >>>>> extends
> >>>>>>> Object, ? extends Object>`?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At this point in the code we're guaranteed that this is a
> >>>>>> ProducerRecord<byte[], byte[]>, so the generics would
just make it
> >>>>> harder
> >>>>>> to work with the key and value.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also, should the handle function include the `RecordMetadata`
as
> >>> well
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> case it is not null?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that
the
> >>> record
> >>>>>> metadata is always null if an exception occurred while trying
to
> >>>>> produce.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We may probably try to write down at least the following
handling
> >>>>> logic
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> see if the given API is sufficient for it
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've added some examples to the KIP. Let me know what you think.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Matt
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:00 PM Matt Farmer <matt@frmr.me>
wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for this feedback. I’m at a conference right now
and am
> >>>>> planning
> >>>>>> on
> >>>>>>> updating the KIP again with details from this conversation
later
> >>> this
> >>>>>> week.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I’ll shoot you a more detailed response then! :)
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 8:16 PM Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP Matt.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Regarding the handle interface of ProductionExceptionHandlerResp
> >>> onse,
> >>>>>>>> could
> >>>>>>>> you write it on the wiki also, along with the actual
added config
> >>>>> names
> >>>>>>>> (e.g. what
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-161%3A+streams+
> >>>>>> deserialization+exception+handlers
> >>>>>>>> described).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The question I had about then handle parameters are
around the
> >>>>> record,
> >>>>>>>> should it be `ProducerRecord<byte[], byte[]>`,
or be generics of
> >>>>>>>> `ProducerRecord<? extends K, ? extends V>` or
`ProducerRecord<?
> >>>>> extends
> >>>>>>>> Object, ? extends Object>`?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Also, should the handle function include the `RecordMetadata`
as
> >>>>> well in
> >>>>>>>> case it is not null?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We may probably try to write down at least the following
handling
> >>>>> logic
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> see if the given API is sufficient for it: 1) throw
exception
> >>>>>> immediately
> >>>>>>>> to fail fast and stop the world, 2) log the error and
drop record
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>> proceed silently, 3) send such errors to a specific
"error" Kafka
> >>>>> topic,
> >>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>> record it as an app-level metrics (
> >>>>>>>> https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#kafka_streams_monitoring
> >> )
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> monitoring.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Guozhang
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Matt Farmer <matt@frmr.me>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I did some more digging tonight.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> @Ted: It looks like the deserialization handler
uses
> >>>>>>>>> "default.deserialization.exception.handler" for
the config
> >>> name. No
> >>>>>>>>> ".class" on the end. I'm inclined to think this
should use
> >>>>>>>>> "default.production.exception.handler".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:22 PM Matt Farmer <matt@frmr.me>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Okay, I've dug into this a little bit.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I think getting access to the serialized record
is possible,
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>> changing
> >>>>>>>>>> the naming and return type is certainly doable.
However,
> >>> because
> >>>>>> we're
> >>>>>>>>>> hooking into the onCompletion callback we have
no guarantee
> >>> that
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> ProcessorContext state hasn't changed by the
time this
> >>> particular
> >>>>>>>> handler
> >>>>>>>>>> runs. So I think the signature would change
to something
> >> like:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ProductionExceptionHandlerResponse handle(final
> >>>>> ProducerRecord<..>
> >>>>>>>>> record,
> >>>>>>>>>> final Exception exception)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Would this be acceptable?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 7:33 PM Matt Farmer
<matt@frmr.me>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ah good idea. Hmmm. I can line up the naming
and return type
> >>> but
> >>>>>> I’m
> >>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>> sure if I can get my hands on the context
and the record
> >>> itself
> >>>>>>>> without
> >>>>>>>>>>> other changes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Let me dig in and follow up here tomorrow.
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 7:14 PM Matthias
J. Sax <
> >>>>>>>> matthias@confluent.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you familiar with KIP-161?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-161%3A+streams+
> >>>>>>>>> deserialization+exception+handlers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I thinks, we should align the design
(parameter naming,
> >>> return
> >>>>>>>> types,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> class names etc) of KIP-210 to KIP-161
to get a unified
> >> user
> >>>>>>>>> experience.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/17 4:20 PM, Matt Farmer wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll create the JIRA ticket.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that config name will work.
I’ll update the KIP
> >>>>>>>> accordingly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:09 PM
Ted Yu <
> >>> yuzhihong@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you create JIRA that corresponds
to the KIP ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the new config, how about
naming it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> production.exception.processor.class
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? This way it is clear that
class name should be
> >>> specified.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:40
PM, Matt Farmer <
> >>> matt@frmr.me>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the discussion thread
for the KIP that I just
> >>> filed
> >>>>>>>> here:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 210+-+Provide+for+custom+error+handling++when+Kafka+
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams+fails+to+produce
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to getting
some feedback from folks
> >> about
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>>>> idea
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working toward a solution
we can contribute back. :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Farmer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> -- Guozhang
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> -- Guozhang
> >>
> >
>
>

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