kafka-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wesley Chow <...@chartbeat.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-14 Tools Standardization
Date Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:28:02 GMT
+1 on the wikimedia kafka tool. We use it exclusively.

Wes
 On Apr 10, 2015 9:32 AM, "Krishna Kumar" <kkumar@nanigans.com> wrote:

> That seems like a better idea. It preserves the backward compatibility of
> existing tools, which can be updated with a warning to use the new
> commands, and that they will be retired in version 1.x - so that there is
> no confusion. Also avoids the one-off problem since there will only be one
> tool. Documentation also can be simplified.
>
>
> On 4/10/15, 9:21 AM, "Andrew Otto" <aotto@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> >(WARNING: Unrelated but kinda related post below!)
> >
> >
> >Cough cough, ditch the myriad of individual scripts and standardize in
> >just one, or a few, that take subcommands, cough cough
> >:)
> >
> >
> >E.g.
> >
> >
> https://github.com/wikimedia/operations-debs-kafka/blob/debian/debian/bin/
> >kafka
> >
> >kafka console-consumer --topic foo
> >
> >with ZOOKEEPER_URL as an env var is so much nicer!
> >
> >-Ao
> >
> >
> >> On Apr 10, 2015, at 06:
> >
> >> 00, Steve Miller <steve@idrathernotsay.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>   I think people will thank you for fixing the inconsistent names,
> >>sure, but even if you just break their test tools they won't thank you
> >>for the firedrill while they revamp the testing or monitoring stuff they
> >>did on top of the current tools.  I'd rather have a somewhat-icky usage
> >>string than have to drop everything that needs tweaking, all at once.
> >>
> >>      -Steve
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 08:56:31PM -0700, Jay Kreps wrote:
> >>> Personally I think this is one where most people would thank us for
> >>>fixing
> >>> the random inconsistent names, and aside from MM most of the tools
> >>>effected
> >>> are just test tools.
> >>>
> >>> I do think jopt-simple supports providing multiple names for the same
> >>> option so we could retain the old names, not sure if that screws up the
> >>> usage message though.
> >>>
> >>> -Jay
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Steve Miller
> >>><steve@idrathernotsay.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> FWIW I like the standardization idea but just making the old switches
> >>>>fail
> >>>> seems like it's not the best plan.  People wrap this sort of thing
> >>>>for any
> >>>> number of reasons, and breaking all of their stuff all at once is not
> >>>>going
> >>>> to make them happy.  And it's not like keeping the old switches
> >>>>working for
> >>>> a while is all that challenging from a technical standpoint.
> >>>>
> >>>> Even if all this does is break stuff when you finally phase out the
> >>>>old
> >>>> switches, telling people that will happen and giving them time to
> >>>>adjust
> >>>> will make them a lot less annoyed with the Kafka community when that
> >>>> happens.  They may still be annoyed, mind you, just not at you.  (-:
> >>>>
> >>>>    -Steve
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 8, 2015, at 10:56 PM, Matthew Warhaftig <mwarhaftig@gmail.com
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Tool Standardization KIP that Jiangjie started has been updated
> >>>>>to
> >>>> contain proposal details:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-14+-+Tools+Standa
> >>>>rdization
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any feedback is appreciated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Matt
> >>>>
> >
>
>

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