kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luís Cabral <luis_cab...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: [VOTE] KIP-280: Enhanced log compaction
Date Mon, 02 Jul 2018 14:41:35 GMT
 Hi Guozhang,

You are right that it is not straightforward to add a dependent property validation. 
Though it is possible to re-design it to allow for this, that effort would be better placed
under its own KIP, if it really becomes useful for other properties as well.
Given this, the fallback-to-offset behaviour currently documented will be used.

Also, while analyzing this, I noticed that the existing compaction properties only exist globally,
and not per topic. 
I don't understand why this is, but it again feels like something out of scope for this KIP.
Given this, the KIP was updated to only include the global configuration properties, removing
the per-topic configs.

I'll soon update the PR according to the documentation, but I trust the KIP doesn't need that
to close, right?

Cheers,
Luis

    On Monday, July 2, 2018, 2:00:08 PM GMT+2, Luís Cabral <luis_cabral@yahoo.com.INVALID>
wrote:  
 
  Hi Guozhang,

At the moment the KIP has your vote, Matthias' and Ted's.
Should I ask someone else to have a look?

Cheers,
Luis

    On Monday, July 2, 2018, 12:16:48 PM GMT+2, Mickael Maison <mickael.maison@gmail.com>
wrote:  
 
 +1 (non binding). Thanks for the KIP!

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangguoz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
> Regarding the minor suggest, I agree it would be better to make it as
> mandatory, but it might be a bit tricky because it is a conditional
> mandatory one depending on the other config's value. Would like to see your
> updated PR.
>
> Regarding the KIP itself, both Matthias and myself can recast our votes to
> the updated wiki, while we still need one more committer to vote according
> to the bylaws.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 5:38 AM, Luís Cabral <luis_cabral@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> Thank you all for having a look!
>>
>> The KIP is now updated with the result of these late discussions, though I
>> did take some liberty with this part:
>>
>>
>>    - If the "compaction.strategy.header" configuration is not set (or is
>> blank), then the compaction strategy will fallback to "offset";
>>
>>
>> Alternatively, we can also set it to be a mandatory property when the
>> strategy is "header" and fail the application to start via a config
>> validation (I would honestly prefer this, but its up to your taste).
>>
>> Anyway, this is now a minute detail that can be adapted during the final
>> stage of this KIP, so are you all alright with me changing the status to
>> [ACCEPTED]?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Luis
>>
>>
>>    On Thursday, June 28, 2018, 2:08:11 PM GMT+2, Ted Yu <
>> yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  +1
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Luís Cabral <luis_cabral@yahoo.com.invalid
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Ted,
>> > Can I also get your input on this?
>> >
>> > bq. +1 from my side for using `compaction.strategy` with values
>> > "offset","timestamp" and "header" and `compaction.strategy.header`
>> > -Matthias
>> >
>> > bq. +1 from me as well.
>> > -Guozhang
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Luis
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang    
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message