There are several questions regarding message enrichment using external data, and the recommendation is almost always the same: ingest external data using Kafka Connect and then join the records using state stores. Although it fits in most cases, there are several other use cases in which it does not, such as IP to location and user agent detection, to name a few.
Enriching a message with an IP-based location usually requires a lookup by a range of IPs, but currently, there is no built-in state store that provides such capability. For user agent analysis, if you rely on a third-party service, you have no choices other than performing external calls.
We spend some time thinking about it, and we came up with an idea of implementing a custom state store on top of a database that supports range queries, like Postgres. We could also abstract an external HTTP or GRPC service behind a state store, but we're not sure if it is the right way.
In that sense, what is the recommended approach when you cannot avoid querying an external service during the stream processing, but you still must guarantee fault tolerance? What happens when an error occurs while the state store is retrieving data (a request fails, for instance)? Do Kafka Streams retry processing the message?
Generally, KeyValueStore#range(fromKey, toKey) is supported by build-in stores. Thus, it would be good to understand how the range queries you try to do are done? Also note, that internally, everything is stored as byte[] arrasy and RocksDB (default storage engine) sorts data accordingly -- hence, you can actually implement quite sophisticated range queries if you start to reason about the byte layout, and pass in corresponding "prefix keys" into #range().
If you really need to call an external service, you have "two" options to not lose data: if an external calls fails, throw an exception and let the Kafka Streams die. This is obviously not a real option, however, if you swallow error from the external lookup you would "skip" the input message and it would be unprocessed. Kafka Streams cannot know that processing "failed" (it does not know what your code does) and will not "retry", but consider the message as completed (similar if you would filter it out).
Hence, to make it work, you would need to put all data you use to trigger the lookup into a state store if the external call fails, and retry later (ie, do a lookup into the store to find unprocessed data and retry). This retry can either be a "side task" when you process the next input message, of you schedule a punctuation, to implement the retry. Note, that this mechanism changes the order in which records are processed, what might or might not be ok for your use case.
Related
I am trying to implement event sourcing/CQRS/DDD for the first time, mostly for learning purposes, where there is the idea of an event store and a message queue such as Apache Kafka, and you have events flowing from event store => Kafka Connect JDBC/Debezium CDC => Kafka.
I am wondering why there needs to be a separate event store when it sounds like its purpose can be fulfilled by Kafka itself with its main features and log compaction or configuring log retention for permanent storage. Should I store my events in a dedicated store like RDBMS to feed into Kafka or should I feed them straight into Kafka?
Much of the literature on event-sourcing and cqrs comes from the [domain driven design] community; in its earliest form, CQRS was called DDDD... Distributed domain driven design.
One of the common patterns in domain driven design is to have a domain model ensuring the integrity of the data in your durable storage, which is to say, ensuring that there are no internal contradictions...
I am wondering why there needs to be a separate event store when it sounds like its purpose can be fulfilled by Kafka itself with its main features and log compaction or configuring log retention for permanent storage.
So if we want an event stream with no internal contradictions, how do we achieve that? One way is to ensure that only a single process has permission to modify the stream. Unfortunately, that leaves you with a single point of failure -- the process dies, and everything comes to an end.
On the other hand, if you have multiple processes updating the same stream, then you have risk of concurrent writes, and data races, and contradictions being introduced because one writer couldn't yet see what the other one did.
With an RDBMS or an Event Store, we can solve this problem by using transactions, or compare and swap semantics; and attempt to extend the stream with new events is rejected if there has been a concurrent modification.
Furthermore, because of its DDD heritage, it is common for the durable store to be divided into many very fine grained partitions (aka "aggregates"). One single shopping cart might reasonably have four streams dedicated to it.
If Kafka lacks those capabilities, then it is going to be a lousy replacement for an event store. KAFKA-2260 has been open for more than four years now, so we seem to be lacking the first. From what I've been able to discern from the Kakfa literature, it isn't happy about fine grained streams either (although its been a while since I checked, perhaps things have changed).
See also: Jesper Hammarbäck writing about this 18 months ago, and reaching similar conclusions to those expressed here.
Kafka can be used as a DDD event store, but there are some complications if you do so due to the features it is missing.
Two key features that people use with event sourcing of aggregates are:
Load an aggregate, by reading the events for just that aggregate
When concurrently writing new events for an aggregate, ensure only one writer succeeds, to avoid corrupting the aggregate and breaking its invariants.
Kafka can't do either of these currently, since 1 fails since you generally need to have one stream per aggregate type (it doesn't scale to one stream per aggregate, and this wouldn't necessarily be desirable anyway), so there's no way to load just the events for one aggregate, and 2 fails since https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2260 has not been implemented.
So you have to write the system in such as way that capabilities 1 and 2 aren't needed. This can be done as follows:
Rather than invoking command handlers directly, write them to
streams. Have a command stream per aggregate type, sharded by
aggregate id (these don't need permanent retention). This ensures that you only ever process a single
command for a particular aggregate at a time.
Write snapshotting code for all your aggregate types
When processing a command message, do the following:
Load the aggregate snapshot
Validate the command against it
Write the new events (or return failure)
Apply the events to the aggregate
Save a new aggregate snapshot, including the current stream offset for the event stream
Return success to the client (via a reply message perhaps)
The only other problem is handling failures (such as the snapshotting failing). This can be handled during startup of a particular command processing partition - it simply needs to replay any events since the last snapshot succeeded, and update the corresponding snapshots before resuming command processing.
Kafka Streams appears to have the features to make this very simple - you have a KStream of commands that you transform into a KTable (containing snapshots, keyed by aggregate id) and a KStream of events (and possibly another stream containing responses). Kafka allows all this to work transactionally, so there is no risk of failing to update the snapshot. It will also handle migrating partitions to new servers, etc. (automatically loading the snapshot KTable into a local RocksDB when this happens).
there is the idea of an event store and a message queue such as Apache Kafka, and you have events flowing from event store => Kafka Connect JDBC/Debezium CDC => Kafka
In the essence of DDD-flavoured event sourcing, there's no place for message queues as such. One of the DDD tactical patterns is the aggregate pattern, which serves as a transactional boundary. DDD doesn't care how the aggregate state is persisted, and usually, people use state-based persistence with relational or document databases. When applying events-based persistence, we need to store new events as one transaction to the event store in a way that we can retrieve those events later in order to reconstruct the aggregate state. Thus, to support DDD-style event sourcing, the store needs to be able to index events by the aggregate id and we usually refer to the concept of the event stream, where such a stream is uniquely identified by the aggregate identifier, and where all events are stored in order, so the stream represents a single aggregate.
Because we rarely can live with a database that only allows us to retrieve a single entity by its id, we need to have some place where we can project those events into, so we can have a queryable store. That is what your diagram shows on the right side, as materialised views. More often, it is called the read side and models there are called read-models. That kind of store doesn't have to keep snapshots of aggregates. Quite the opposite, read-models serve the purpose to represent the system state in a way that can be directly consumed by the UI/API and often it doesn't match with the domain model as such.
As mentioned in one of the answers here, the typical command handler flow is:
Load one aggregate state by id, by reading all events for that aggregate. It already requires for the event store to support that kind of load, which Kafka cannot do.
Call the domain model (aggregate root method) to perform some action.
Store new events to the aggregate stream, all or none.
If you now start to write events to the store and publish them somewhere else, you get a two-phase commit issue, which is hard to solve. So, we usually prefer using products like EventStore, which has the ability to create a catch-up subscription for all written events. Kafka supports that too. It is also beneficial to have the ability to create new event indexes in the store, linking to existing events, especially if you have several systems using one store. In EventStore it can be done using internal projections, you can also do it with Kafka streams.
I would argue that indeed you don't need any messaging system between write and read sides. The write side should allow you to subscribe to the event feed, starting from any position in the event log, so you can build your read-models.
However, Kafka only works in systems that don't use the aggregate pattern, because it is essential to be able to use events, not a snapshot, as the source of truth, although it is of course discussable. I would look at the possibility to change the way how events are changing the entity state (fixing a bug, for example) and when you use events to reconstruct the entity state, you will be just fine, snapshots will stay the same and you'll need to apply correction events to fix all the snapshots.
I personally also prefer not to be tightly coupled to any infrastructure in my domain model. In fact, my domain models have zero dependencies on the infrastructure. By bringing the snapshotting logic to Kafka streams builder, I would be immediately coupled and from my point of view it is not the best solution.
Theoretically you can use Kafka for Event Store but as many people mentioned above that you will have several restrictions, biggest of those, only able to read event with the offset in the Kafka but no other criteria.
For this reason they are Frameworks there dealing with the Event Sourcing and CQRS part of the problem.
Kafka is only part of the toolchain which provides you the capability of replaying events and back pressure mechanism that are protecting you from overload.
If you want to see how all fits together, I have a blog about it
We have the first version of an application based on a microservice architecture. We used REST for external and internal communication.
Now we want to switch to AP from CP (CAP theorem)* and use a message bus for communication between microservices.
There is a lot of information about how to create an event bus based on Kafka, RabbitMQ, etc.
But I can't find any best practices for a combination of REST and messaging.
For example, you create a car service and you need to add different car components. It would make more sense, for this purpose, to use REST with POST requests. On the other hand, a service for booking a car would be a good task for an event-based approach.
Do you have a similar approach when you have a different dictionary and business logic capabilities? How do you combine them? Just support both approaches separately? Or unify them in one approach?
* for the first version, we agreed to choose consistency and partition tolerance. But now availability becomes more important for us.
Bottom line up front: You're looking for Command Query Responsibility Segregation; which defines an architectural pattern for breaking up responsibilities from querying for data to asking for a process to be run. The short answer is you do not want to mix the two in either a query or a process in a blocking fashion. The rest of this answer will go into detail as to why, and the three different ways you can do what you're trying to do.
This answer is a short form of the experience I have with Microservices. My bona fides: I've created Microservices topologies from scratch (and nearly zero knowledge) and as they say hit every branch on the way down.
One of the benefits of starting from zero-knowledge is that the first topology I created used a mixture of intra-service synchronous and blocking (HTTP) communication (to retrieve data needed for an operation from the service that held it), and message queues + asynchronous events to run operations (for Commands).
I'll define both terms:
Commands: Telling a service to do something. For instance, "Run ETL Batch job". You expect there to be an output from this; but it is necessarily a process that you're not going to be able to reliably wait on. A command has side-effects. Something will change because of this action (If nothing happens and nothing changes, then you haven't done anything).
Query: Asking a service for data that it holds. This data may have been there because of a Command given, but asking for data should not have side effects. No Command operations should need to be run because of a Query received.
Anyway, back to the topology.
Level 1: Mixed HTTP and Events
For this first topology, we mixed Synchronous Queries with Asynchronous Events being emitted. This was... problematic.
Message Buses are by their nature observable. One setting in RabbitMQ, or an Event Source, and you can observe all events in the system. This has some good side-effects, in that when something happens in the process you can typically figure out what events led to that state (if you follow an event-driven paradigm + state machines).
HTTP Calls are not observable without inspecting network traffic or logging those requests (which itself has problems, so we're going to start with "not feasible" in normal operations). Therefore if you mix a message based process and HTTP calls, you're going to have holes where you can't tell what's going on. You'll have spots where due to a network error your HTTP call didn't return data, and your services didn't continue the process because of that. You'll also need to hook up Retry/Circuit Breaker patterns for your HTTP calls to ensure they at least try a few times, but then you have to differentiate between "Not up because it's down", and "Not up because it's momentarily busy".
In short, mixing the two methods for a Command Driven process is not very resilient.
Level 2: Events define RPC/Internal Request/Response for data; Queries are External
In step two of this maturity model, you separate out Commands and Queries. Commands should use an event driven system, and queries should happen through HTTP. If you need the results of a query for a Command, then you issue a message and use a Request/Response pattern over your message bus.
This has benefits and problems too.
Benefits-wise your entire Command is now observable, even as it hops through multiple services. You can also replay processes in the system by rerunning events, which can be useful in tracking down problems.
Problems-wise now some of your events look a lot like queries; and you're now recreating the beautiful HTTP and REST semantics available in HTTP for messages; and that's not terribly fun or useful. As an example, a 404 tells you there's no data in REST. For a message based event, you have to recreate those semantics (There's a good Youtube conference talk on the subject I can't find but a team tried to do just that with great pain).
However, your events are now asynchronous and non-blocking, and every service can be refactored to a state-machine that will respond to a given event. Some caveats are those events should contain all the data needed for the operation (which leads to messages growing over the course of a process).
Your queries can still use HTTP for external communication; but for internal command/processes, you'd use the message bus.
I don't recommend this approach either (though it's a step up from the first approach). I don't recommend it because of the impurity your events start to take on, and in a microservices system having contracts be the same throughout the system is important.
Level 3: Producers of Data emit data as events. Consumers Record data for their use.
The third step in the maturity model (and we were on our way to that paradigm when I departed from the project) is for services that produce data to issue events when that data is produced. That data is then jotted down by services listening for those events, and those services will use that (could be?) stale data to conduct their operations. External customers still use HTTP; but internally you emit events when new data is produced, and each service that cares about that data will store it to use when it needs to. This is the crux of Michael Bryzek's talk Designing Microservices Architecture the Right way. Michael Bryzek is the CTO of Flow.io, a white-label e-commerce company.
If you want a deeper answer along with other issues at play, I'll point you to my blog post on the subject.
We have a micro-services architecture, with Kafka used as the communication mechanism between the services. Some of the services have their own databases. Say the user makes a call to Service A, which should result in a record (or set of records) being created in that service’s database. Additionally, this event should be reported to other services, as an item on a Kafka topic. What is the best way of ensuring that the database record(s) are only written if the Kafka topic is successfully updated (essentially creating a distributed transaction around the database update and the Kafka update)?
We are thinking of using spring-kafka (in a Spring Boot WebFlux service), and I can see that it has a KafkaTransactionManager, but from what I understand this is more about Kafka transactions themselves (ensuring consistency across the Kafka producers and consumers), rather than synchronising transactions across two systems (see here: “Kafka doesn't support XA and you have to deal with the possibility that the DB tx might commit while the Kafka tx rolls back.”). Additionally, I think this class relies on Spring’s transaction framework which, at least as far as I currently understand, is thread-bound, and won’t work if using a reactive approach (e.g. WebFlux) where different parts of an operation may execute on different threads. (We are using reactive-pg-client, so are manually handling transactions, rather than using Spring’s framework.)
Some options I can think of:
Don’t write the data to the database: only write it to Kafka. Then use a consumer (in Service A) to update the database. This seems like it might not be the most efficient, and will have problems in that the service which the user called cannot immediately see the database changes it should have just created.
Don’t write directly to Kafka: write to the database only, and use something like Debezium to report the change to Kafka. The problem here is that the changes are based on individual database records, whereas the business significant event to store in Kafka might involve a combination of data from multiple tables.
Write to the database first (if that fails, do nothing and just throw the exception). Then, when writing to Kafka, assume that the write might fail. Use the built-in auto-retry functionality to get it to keep trying for a while. If that eventually completely fails, try to write to a dead letter queue and create some sort of manual mechanism for admins to sort it out. And if writing to the DLQ fails (i.e. Kafka is completely down), just log it some other way (e.g. to the database), and again create some sort of manual mechanism for admins to sort it out.
Anyone got any thoughts or advice on the above, or able to correct any mistakes in my assumptions above?
Thanks in advance!
I'd suggest to use a slightly altered variant of approach 2.
Write into your database only, but in addition to the actual table writes, also write "events" into a special table within that same database; these event records would contain the aggregations you need. In the easiest way, you'd simply insert another entity e.g. mapped by JPA, which contains a JSON property with the aggregate payload. Of course this could be automated by some means of transaction listener / framework component.
Then use Debezium to capture the changes just from that table and stream them into Kafka. That way you have both: eventually consistent state in Kafka (the events in Kafka may trail behind or you might see a few events a second time after a restart, but eventually they'll reflect the database state) without the need for distributed transactions, and the business level event semantics you're after.
(Disclaimer: I'm the lead of Debezium; funnily enough I'm just in the process of writing a blog post discussing this approach in more detail)
Here are the posts
https://debezium.io/blog/2018/09/20/materializing-aggregate-views-with-hibernate-and-debezium/
https://debezium.io/blog/2019/02/19/reliable-microservices-data-exchange-with-the-outbox-pattern/
first of all, I have to say that I’m no Kafka, nor a Spring expert but I think that it’s more a conceptual challenge when writing to independent resources and the solution should be adaptable to your technology stack. Furthermore, I should say that this solution tries to solve the problem without an external component like Debezium, because in my opinion each additional component brings challenges in testing, maintaining and running an application which is often underestimated when choosing such an option. Also not every database can be used as a Debezium-source.
To make sure that we are talking about the same goals, let’s clarify the situation in an simplified airline example, where customers can buy tickets. After a successful order the customer will receive a message (mail, push-notification, …) that is sent by an external messaging system (the system we have to talk with).
In a traditional JMS world with an XA transaction between our database (where we store orders) and the JMS provider it would look like the following: The client sets the order to our app where we start a transaction. The app stores the order in its database. Then the message is sent to JMS and you can commit the transaction. Both operations participate at the transaction even when they’re talking to their own resources. As the XA transaction guarantees ACID we’re fine.
Let’s bring Kafka (or any other resource that is not able to participate at the XA transaction) in the game. As there is no coordinator that syncs both transactions anymore the main idea of the following is to split processing in two parts with a persistent state.
When you store the order in your database you can also store the message (with aggregated data) in the same database (e.g. as JSON in a CLOB-column) that you want to send to Kafka afterwards. Same resource – ACID guaranteed, everything fine so far. Now you need a mechanism that polls your “KafkaTasks”-Table for new tasks that should be send to a Kafka-Topic (e.g. with a timer service, maybe #Scheduled annotation can be used in Spring). After the message has been successfully sent to Kafka you can delete the task entry. This ensures that the message to Kafka is only sent when the order is also successfully stored in application database. Did we achieve the same guarantees as we have when using a XA transaction? Unfortunately, no, as there is still the chance that writing to Kafka works but the deletion of the task fails. In this case the retry-mechanism (you would need one as mentioned in your question) would reprocess the task an sends the message twice. If your business case is happy with this “at-least-once”-guarantee you’re done here with a imho semi-complex solution that could be easily implemented as framework functionality so not everyone has to bother with the details.
If you need “exactly-once” then you cannot store your state in the application database (in this case “deletion of a task” is the “state”) but instead you must store it in Kafka (assuming that you have ACID guarantees between two Kafka topics). An example: Let’s say you have 100 tasks in the table (IDs 1 to 100) and the task job processes the first 10. You write your Kafka messages to their topic and another message with the ID 10 to “your topic”. All in the same Kafka-transaction. In the next cycle you consume your topic (value is 10) and take this value to get the next 10 tasks (and delete the already processed tasks).
If there are easier (in-application) solutions with the same guarantees I’m looking forward to hear from you!
Sorry for the long answer but I hope it helps.
All the approach described above are the best way to approach the problem and are well defined pattern. You can explore these in the links provided below.
Pattern: Transactional outbox
Publish an event or message as part of a database transaction by saving it in an OUTBOX in the database.
http://microservices.io/patterns/data/transactional-outbox.html
Pattern: Polling publisher
Publish messages by polling the outbox in the database.
http://microservices.io/patterns/data/polling-publisher.html
Pattern: Transaction log tailing
Publish changes made to the database by tailing the transaction log.
http://microservices.io/patterns/data/transaction-log-tailing.html
Debezium is a valid answer but (as I've experienced) it can require some extra overhead of running an extra pod and making sure that pod doesn't fall over. This could just be me griping about a few back to back instances where pods OOM errored and didn't come back up, networking rule rollouts dropped some messages, WAL access to an aws aurora db started behaving oddly... It seems that everything that could have gone wrong, did. Not saying Debezium is bad, it's fantastically stable, but often for devs running it becomes a networking skill rather than a coding skill.
As a KISS solution using normal coding solutions that will work 99.99% of the time (and inform you of the .01%) would be:
Start Transaction
Sync save to DB
-> If fail, then bail out.
Async send message to kafka.
Block until the topic reports that it has received the
message.
-> if it times out or fails Abort Transaction.
-> if it succeeds Commit Transaction.
I'd suggest to use a new approach 2-phase message. In this new approach, much less codes are needed, and you don't need Debeziums any more.
https://betterprogramming.pub/an-alternative-to-outbox-pattern-7564562843ae
For this new approach, what you need to do is:
When writing your database, write an event record to an auxiliary table.
Submit a 2-phase message to DTM
Write a service to query whether an event is saved in the auxiliary table.
With the help of DTM SDK, you can accomplish the above 3 steps with 8 lines in Go, much less codes than other solutions.
msg := dtmcli.NewMsg(DtmServer, gid).
Add(busi.Busi+"/TransIn", &TransReq{Amount: 30})
err := msg.DoAndSubmitDB(busi.Busi+"/QueryPrepared", db, func(tx *sql.Tx) error {
return AdjustBalance(tx, busi.TransOutUID, -req.Amount)
})
app.GET(BusiAPI+"/QueryPrepared", dtmutil.WrapHandler2(func(c *gin.Context) interface{} {
return MustBarrierFromGin(c).QueryPrepared(db)
}))
Each of your origin options has its disadvantage:
The user cannot immediately see the database changes it have just created.
Debezium will capture the log of the database, which may be much larger than the events you wanted. Also deployment and maintenance of Debezium is not an easy job.
"built-in auto-retry functionality" is not cheap, it may require much codes or maintenance efforts.
We've started experimenting with Kafka to see if it can be used to aggregate our application data. I think our use case is a match for Kafka streams, but we aren't sure if we are using the tool correctly. The proof of concept we've built seems to be working as designed, I'm not sure that we are using the APIs appropriately.
Our proof of concept is to use kafka streams to keep a running tally of information about a program in an output topic, e.g.
{
"numberActive": 0,
"numberInactive": 0,
"lastLogin": "01-01-1970T00:00:00Z"
}
Computing the tally is easy, it is essentially executing a compare and swap (CAS) operation based on the input topic & output field.
The local state contains the most recent program for a given key. We join an input stream against the state store and run the CAS operation using a TransformSupplier, which explictly writes the data to the state store using
context.put(...)
context.commit();
Is this an appropriate use of the local state store? Is there another another approach to keeping a stateful running tally in a topic?
Your design sounds right to me (I presume you are using PAPI not the Streams DSL), that you are reading in one stream, calling transform() on the stream in which an state store is associated with the operator. Since your update logic seems to be only key-dependent and hence can be embarrassingly parallelizable via Streams library based on key partitioning.
One thing to note that, it seems you are calling "context.commit()" after every single put call, which is not a recommended pattern. This is because commit() operation is a pretty heavy call that will involves flushing the state store, sending commit offset request to the Kafka broker etc, calling it on every single call would result in very low throughput. It is recommended to only call commit() only after a bunch of records are processed, or you can just rely on the Streams config "commit.interval.ms" to rely on Streams library to only call commit() internally after every time interval. Note that this will not affect your processing semantics upon graceful shutting down, since upon shutdown Streams will always enforce a commit() call.
I have an application where multiple users can send REST operations to modify the state of shared objects.
When an object is modified, then multiple actions will happen (DB, audit, logging...).
Not all the operations are valid for example you can not Modify an object after it was Deleted.
Using Kafka I was thinking about the following architecture:
Rest operations are queuing in a Kafka topic.
Operations to the same object are going to the same partition. So all the object's operations will be in sequence and processed by a consumer
Consumers are listening to a partition and validate the operation using an in-memory database
If the operation was valid then is sent to a "Valid operation topic" otherways is sent to an "Invalid operation topic"
Other consumers (db, log, audit) are listening to the "Valid operation topic"
I am not very sure about point number 3.
I don't like the idea to keep the state of all my objects. (I have billions of objects and even if an object can be of 10mb in size, what I need to store to validate its state is just few Kbytes...)
However, is this a common pattern? Otherwise how can you verify the validity of certain operations?
Also what would do you use as a in-memory database? Surely it has to be highly available, fault-tolerant and support transaction (read and write).
I believe this is a very valid pattern, and is essentially a variation to an event-sourced CQRS pattern.
For example, Lagom implements their CQRS persistence in a very similar fashion (although based on completely different toolset)
A few points:
you are right about the need for sequencial operations: since all your state mutations need to be based on the result of the previous mutation, there must be a strong order in their execution. This is very often the case for such things, so we like to be able to scale those operations horizontally as much as possible so that each of those sequences operations is happening in parallel to many other sequences. In your case we have one such sequence per shared object.
Relying on Kafka partitioning by key is a good way to achieve that (assuming you do not set max.in.flight.requests.per.connection higher than the default value 1). Here again Lagom has a similar approach by having their persistent entity distributed and single-threaded. I'm not saying Lagom is better, I'm just comforting you in the fact that is approach is used by others :)
a key aspect of your pattern is the transformation of a Command into an Event: in that jargon a command is seen as a request to impact the state and may be rejected for various reasons. An event is a description of a state update that happened in the past and is irrefutable from the point of view of those who receive it: a event always tells the truth. The process you are describing would be a controller that is at the boundary between the two: it is responsible for transforming commands into events.
In that sense the "Valid operation topic" you mention would be an event-sourced description of the state updates of your process. Since it's all backed by Kafka it would be arbitrarily partionable and thus scalable, which is awesome :)
Don't worry about the size of the sate of all your object, it must sit somewhere somehow. Since you have this controller that transforms the commands into events, this one becomes the primary source of truth related to that object, and this one is responsible for storing it: this controller handles the primary storage for your events, so you must cater space for it. You can use Kafka Streams's Key value store: those are local to each of your processing instance, though if you make them persistent they have no problem in handling data much bigger that the available RAM. Behind the scene data is spilled to disk thanks to RocksDB, and even more behind the scene it's all event-sourced to a kafka topic so your state store is replicated and will be transparently re-created on another machine if necessary
I hope this helps you finalise your design :)