kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthias J. Sax" <matth...@confluent.io>
Subject Re: [VOTE] KIP-464: Defaults for AdminClient#createTopic
Date Wed, 12 Jun 2019 22:24:47 GMT
We want to make a small additional change and piggy-back it to this KIP.

To exploit the new feature of AdmintClient in KafkaStreams, we want to
update the default value of Streams configuration parameter
`replication.factor` from `1` to `-1`.

This config change will of course only go into 2.4 release.

I updated the KIP accordingly and created
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-8531

Let us know if there are any concerns. I don't think that we need to
revote base on this tiny change.


-Matthias

On 5/28/19 8:50 AM, Almog Gavra wrote:
> Hello everyone - the PR is out and ready to review!
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6728/
> 
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:57 AM Almog Gavra <almog@confluent.io> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks everyone for the comments and discussion! Closing the voting out
>> for this KIP:
>>
>> * 4 Binding (Randall, Manikumar, Colin, Gwen)
>> * 2 Non-Binding (Ryanne, Mickael)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Almog
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:55 AM Gwen Shapira <gwen@confluent.io> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (binding)
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 9:32 AM Almog Gavra <almog@confluent.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm happy pulling it out into a separate KIP to target the discussion.
>>> This
>>>> one can just introduce the "default" constructor for no partitions or
>>>> replicas since we'll need that one whether or not we add the builder.
>>>>
>>>> Updated the KIP moving the builder to a section in "Rejected
>>> Alternatives -
>>>> Follow Up KIP" - @Randall since your +1 was for the KIP with builder I
>>> want
>>>> to make sure that is okay with you.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 9:14 AM Colin McCabe <cmccabe@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Given that there are still some open questions about the builder,
>>> maybe
>>>> we
>>>>> should put it in a separate KIP?
>>>>>
>>>>> best,
>>>>> Colin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019, at 09:00, Ryanne Dolan wrote:
>>>>>> +1 (non-binding) for the core feature, but I could take or leave
the
>>>>>> builder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ryanne
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:43 AM Almog Gavra <almog@confluent.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Ismael - I agree that the methods are a little random. They
were
>>>> just
>>>>>>> ported from what's currently in the connect builder. I think
a
>>> better
>>>>>>> option might be to keep the connect builder around and have extend
>>>> from
>>>>>>> this builder, and make this builder only implement the "critical"
>>>>> methods
>>>>>>> (e.g. replicas/partitions/config). (cc Randall)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is passing optionals in the constructor something that's common
in
>>>> AK?
>>>>> I
>>>>>>> think my preference would be toward the builder so that it's
>>> easier
>>>> to
>>>>>>> extend as Randall mentioned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Almog
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 8:17 AM Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The current builder includes random methods like
>>>>> uncleanLeaderElection.
>>>>>>>> That doesn't make sense to me since it's a topic config (and
we
>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> include methods for other topic configs). Also, I'm not sure
>>> about
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> naming convention, should we have a `with` prefix? It would
be
>>> good
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> check existing builders in `clients` if any exist for what
>>> they're
>>>>> doing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we didn't add a builder, another option would be a single
new
>>>>>>>> constructor:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> public NewTopic(String name, Optional<Integer> numPartitions,
>>>>>>>> Optional<Short> replicationFactor)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ismael
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 3:38 PM Almog Gavra <almog@confluent.io>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks Colin! Since the discussion around the builder
is here
>>>> I'll
>>>>> copy
>>>>>>>>> over my comment from the discuss thread:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we want the flexibility that the builder provides
we would
>>>> need
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> add
>>>>>>>>> three constructors:
>>>>>>>>> - no partitions/replicas
>>>>>>>>> - just partitions
>>>>>>>>> - just replicas
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see good use cases for the first two - the third (just
>>>> replicas)
>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>> less necessary but complicates the API a bit (you have
to
>>>>> differentiate
>>>>>>>>> NewTopic(int) with NewTopic(short) or something like
that). If
>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>> happy
>>>>>>>>> with a KIP that covers just the first two then I can
remove
>>> the
>>>>> builder
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> simplify things. Otherwise, I think the builder is an
>>> important
>>>>>>> addition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:50 PM Colin McCabe <
>>> cmccabe@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 (binding).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Re: the builder discussion.  I don't feel strongly
either
>>> way--
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> builder sketched out in the KIP looks reasonable,
but I can
>>>> also
>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>>> Ismael's argument for keeping the KIP minimal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> best,
>>>>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2019, at 08:09, Randall Hauch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm fine with simplifying the KIP by removing
the Builder
>>>>> (which
>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>> ancillary), or keeping the KIP as-is. I'll wait
to vote
>>> until
>>>>> Almog
>>>>>>>>> says
>>>>>>>>>>> which way he'd like to proceed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:45 AM Ismael Juma <
>>>> ismael@juma.me.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Almog,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Adding a Builder seems unrelated to this
change. Do we
>>> need
>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>> Given
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> imminent KIP deadline, I'd keep it simple
and just have
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> constructor
>>>>>>>>>>>> with just the name parameter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ismael
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:58 AM Mickael Maison
<
>>>>>>>>>> mickael.maison@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was planning to write a KIP for the
exact same
>>> feature!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (non binding)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:24 PM Almog
Gavra <
>>>>> almog@confluent.io
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kicking off the voting for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-464%3A+Defaults+for+AdminClient%23createTopic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can see discussion thread here
(please respond
>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> suggestions on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c0adfd2457e5984be7471fe6ade8a94d52c647356c81c039445d6b34@%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Almog
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Gwen Shapira*
>>> Product Manager | Confluent
>>> 650.450.2760 | @gwenshap
>>> Follow us: Twitter <https://twitter.com/ConfluentInc> | blog
>>> <http://www.confluent.io/blog>
>>>
>>
> 


Mime
View raw message