Current state: Under Discussion
Discussion thread: here [Change the link from the KIP proposal email archive to your own email thread]
Please keep the discussion on the mailing list rather than commenting on the wiki (wiki discussions get unwieldy fast).
Kafka already has user configurable policies which can be used by a cluster administrator to limit how the cluster can be modified by non-administrator users (for example by using the AdminClient API):
CreateTopicPolicycan prevent a topic being created based on topic creation parameters (name, number of partitions & replication factor or replica assignments, topic configs)
AlterConfigPolicycan prevent a change to topic config (or, in theory, broker config, but it's current not possible to change broker configs via the AdminClient API)
As existing tools are migrated to using AdminClient APIs rather than interacting directly with ZooKeeper we need to apply policies to them, but the existing policy interfaces make it difficult to do this in a consistent way.
Currently the topic config is passed to the
CreateTopicPolicy, but if a topic config is later modified the
AlterConfigPolicy is applied. If an administrator wants to use the topic config in their policy decisions they have to implement this logic in two places. If the policy decision depends on both the topic config and another aspect of the topic the
AlterConfigPolicy interface doesn't provide the necessary information.
Changing the number of partitions in a topic was the subject of KIP-195 and is just one kind of topic modification. Consider two example use cases:
- It shouldn't be possible to create a topic, but then modify it so that it no longer conforms to the
- An administrator who wants to prevent increasing the number of partitions entirely for topics with keys, because of the effect on partitioning.
To solve 1, we could simply apply the existing
TopicCreationPolicy to modifications, but
- this would obscure whether a particular invocation of the policy was for a topic creation or modification (the second bullet)
- we would be left with a misleadingly named policy
So there needs to be a policy for specifically for modifying a topic. But it is confusing and error-prone if there are different policy classes for creation and modification (the
CreateTopicPolicy and a new
ModifyTopicPolicy, say): It would be easy for the code implementing a user's policies to get out of sync if it needs to be maintained in two places. It would also be easy to configure one policy but not the other. So it would be better if there were a single policy interface which is applied to both topic creation and modification.
Reassigning replicas is another kind of topic modification and the subject of KIP-179. By similar reasoning to example 2 it, too, should be covered by the same policy.
How does this KIP relate to KIP-170?
A new policy interface will be added which properly can be applied uniformly to topic creation and modifications.
This policy will be configured via a new configuration key,
The existing policy interfaces
AlterConfigPolicy will be deprecated, but will continue to be applied where they are currently applied until they are removed.
The following policy interface will be added
This policy will be applied:
- On topic creation
- On topic modification
- Change in topic config, via
AdminClient.alterConfigs()(this change done as part of this KIP).
- Adding partitions to topics, via
AdminClient.createPartitions()(see KIP-195, but this change done as part of this KIP)
- Reassigning partitions to brokers, and/or changing the replication factor via
- Change in topic config, via
- On topic deletion
This will be configurable via the
topic.actions.policy.class.name broker config.
Note: Unlike previous policy interfaces the inner
RequestMetadata is an interface rather than a class. This should simplify testing and better permit use sites to, for example, lazily fetch metadata when it's actually required by the policy implementation, rather than eagerly fetch information which the policy didn't actually require.
What other policies might there be in future? delete records policy
Deprecate existing policies
AlterConfigPolicy will be deprecated, but will continue to be applied when they are configured.
alter.config.policy.class.name will result in an deprecation warning in the broker logs.
It will be a configuration time error if both
topic.actions.policy.class.name are used at the same time, or both
topic.actions.policy.class.name are used at the same time.
Internally, an adapter implementation of
TopicActionsPolicy will be used when
AlterConfigPolicy are configured, so policy use sites won't be unnecessarily complicated.
If, in the future,
AlterConfigsRequest is changed to support changing broker configs a separate policy interface can be applied to such changes.
Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan
Existing users will have to reimplement their policies in terms of the new
TopicActionsPolicy interface, and reconfigure their brokers accordingly. Since the
TopicActionsPolicy contains a superset of the existing information used by the deprecated policies such reimplementation should be trivial.
The deprecated policy interfaces and configuration keys will be removed in a future Kafka version. If this KIP is accepted for Kafka 1.1.0 this removal could happen in Kafka 1.2.0 or a later release.
The objectives of this KIP could be achieved without deprecating the existing policy classes, but that:
- incurs ongoing maintenance and testing costs on the project for not overall benefit
- If two policies were in force it would be more confusing to users when a request was rejected (which policy rejected it?) possibly exacerbated if users didn't know two policies were in force.
- If it were possible to have two policies in force administrators have not been relieved of the burden of maintaining two policies in sync.
The proposed TopicActionsPolicy doesn't have to cover the topic deletion case: That could still be handled by a separate policy, but it is desirable to have a single policy to cover the whole lifecycle of a topic, and for the same information to be made available about a topic being deleted as about a topic being modified.
The proposed TopicActionsPolicy doesn't cover the use case of records being deleted from a topic. This is not the same as the modification of a topic, and would require a different policy interface. It might be appropriate to use the same topic state in such a policy interface, however.