Current state: Under Discussion
Discussion thread: here
JIRA: here
Please keep the discussion on the mailing list rather than commenting on the wiki (wiki discussions get unwieldy fast).
Since Kafka transactions protocol is improved by KIP-447: Producer scalability for exactly once semantics and Kafka Streams has already onbarded eos-v2 by KIP-732: Deprecate eos-alpha and replace eos-beta with eos-v2 we should also drop support for legacy transactions protocol (without Consumer Group generation id and member id) in Kafka Producer.
Present API informs developers that they should avoid legacy protocol by marking void sendOffsetsToTransaction(Map<TopicPartition,OffsetAndMetadata> offsets, String consumerGroupId) depracated, but still developers can easily use a non depreacated method void sendOffsetsToTransaction(Map<TopicPartition,OffsetAndMetadata> offsets, ConsumerGroupMetadata groupMetadata) and pass there ConsumerGroupMetadata instance created by hand using non deprecated constructor.
This situation is also quite confusing for migrating the legacy applications since the easiest way to make a code not use any deprecated API is to just wrap a string consumer group id to ConsumerGroupMetadata and pass it to the void sendOffsetsToTransaction(Map<TopicPartition,OffsetAndMetadata> offsets, ConsumerGroupMetadata groupMetadata) method without generation id and member id.
Users should not create instances of `ConsumerGroupMetadata`, and this class should not have any public constructor.
ConsumerGroupMetadata class should be an interface, we should provide a new internal class for interface implementation and use java default scope for class visibility.
public interface ConsumerGroupMetadata {
String groupId();
int generationId();
String memberId();
Optional<String> groupInstanceId();
} |
class DefaultConsumerGroupMetadata implements ConsumerGroupMetadata {
private final String groupId;
private final int generationId;
private final String memberId;
private final Optional<String> groupInstanceId;
DefaultConsumerGroupMetadata(String groupId,
int generationId,
String memberId,
Optional<String> groupInstanceId) {
this.groupId = Objects.requireNonNull(groupId, "group.id can't be null");
this.generationId = generationId;
this.memberId = Objects.requireNonNull(memberId, "member.id can't be null");
this.groupInstanceId = Objects.requireNonNull(groupInstanceId, "group.instance.id can't be null");
}
public String groupId() {
return groupId;
}
public int generationId() {
return generationId;
}
public String memberId() {
return memberId;
}
public Optional<String> groupInstanceId() {
return groupInstanceId;
}
@Override
public String toString() {
return String.format("GroupMetadata(groupId = %s, generationId = %d, memberId = %s, groupInstanceId = %s)",
groupId,
generationId,
memberId,
groupInstanceId.orElse(""));
}
@Override
public boolean equals(final Object o) {
if (this == o) return true;
if (o == null || getClass() != o.getClass()) return false;
final DefaultConsumerGroupMetadata that = (DefaultConsumerGroupMetadata) o;
return generationId == that.generationId &&
Objects.equals(groupId, that.groupId) &&
Objects.equals(memberId, that.memberId) &&
Objects.equals(groupInstanceId, that.groupInstanceId);
}
@Override
public int hashCode() {
return Objects.hash(groupId, generationId, memberId, groupInstanceId);
}
}
|
Describe in few sentences how the KIP will be tested. We are mostly interested in system tests (since unit-tests are specific to implementation details). How will we know that the implementation works as expected? How will we know nothing broke?
If there are alternative ways of accomplishing the same thing, what were they? The purpose of this section is to motivate why the design is the way it is and not some other way.