kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-78: Cluster Id
Date Thu, 01 Sep 2016 17:19:24 GMT
Hi Jun,

Thanks for the feedback. Using `Cluster` was appealing because it has the
information we need and it is already a public class, so we would not need
to introduce a new public class with a potentially confusing name. Having
said that, I agree with your points and I have updated the KIP so that the
listener is called ClusterResourceListener and we now pass a
ClusterResource instance.

I have also clarified the motivation section a little and added a paragraph
about the fact that the cluster id is only stored in ZooKeeper. I think
this is fine for the first version and we can tackle improvements in future
KIPs.

I intend to start a vote soon as it seems like people are generally fine
with the current proposal.

Ismael

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Jun Rao <jun@confluent.io> wrote:

> Ismael,
>
> Thanks for the proposal. It looks good overall. Just a comment below.
>
> We are adding the following interface in ClusterListener and Cluster
> includes all brokers' endpoint and the metadata of topic partitions.
>
> void onClusterUpdate(Cluster cluster);
>
>
> On the broker side, will that method be called when there is broker or
> topic/partition change in metadata cache? Another thing is that Cluster
> only includes one endpoint. This makes sense for the client. However, on
> the broker side, it's not clear which endpoint should be used.
>
> In general, I am not sure how useful it is for serializers, interceptors,
> metric reporters to know all brokers endpoints and topic/partition
> metadata.
>
> I was thinking we could instead pass in sth like a ClusterResourceMeta and
> just include the clusterId for now. This way, we can guarantee that
> onClusterUpdate()
> will only be called once and it's easier to implement on the broker side.
>
> Jun
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:24 AM, Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the feedback Guozhang. Comment inline.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > About logging / debugging with the cluster id: I think the random UUID
> > > itself may not be very helpful for human-readable debugging
> information,
> > > and we'd better use the cluster name mentioned in future work in
> logging.
> > >
> >
> > We can also add the human-readable value once it's available. However,
> the
> > random UUID is still useful now. After all, we use Git commit hashes in
> > many places and they are significantly longer than what we are proposing
> > here (40 instead of 22 characters) . When comparing by eye, one can often
> > just look at the first few characters to distinguish. Does that make
> sense?
> >
> > Ismael
> >
>

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