Hi Badai, Thanks for the KIP. A quick question from me:
"CreateTime:1592475472398|key1|3|0|h1=v1,h2=v2|value1 <-- offset 3, partition 0" Seems the partition follows the offset. My question is, does the property order matter? The partition is always printed following the offset no matter the order for `print.partition=true` and `print.offset=true` is specified. How do users get aware of the number `3` means the offset instead of the partition? I am assuming "<-- offset 3, partition 0" is your comment not the printed words:-) Am I correct? ________________________________ 发件人: Badai Aqrandista <ba...@confluent.io> 发送时间: 2020年7月9日 17:29 收件人: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> 主题: Re: [VOTE] KIP-431: Support of printing additional ConsumerRecord fields in DefaultMessageFormatter David Thanks for the vote. That is a good idea. Will start another KIP once this one is done. Regards Badai On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:46 PM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> wrote: > > Hi Badai, > > Thanks for the KIP. I think that it is a nice improvement so I am +1 > (non-binding). > > Long term, I wonder if we could adopt a formatting system similar to > kafkacat. It > would reduce the number of properties that one has to set and also allow > more > powerful formatting. That could be done as a new formatter for instance. > > Example: > kafkacat -b mybroker -t syslog -f 'Topic %t[%p], offset: %o, key: %k, > payload: %S bytes: %s\n' > > Best, > David > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 12:30 PM Manikumar <manikumar.re...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > > Thanks, > > Manikumar > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:47 AM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > On 7/7/20 7:16 PM, John Roesler wrote: > > > > Hi Badai, > > > > > > > > Thanks for picking this up. I've reviewed the KIP document and > > > > the threads you linked. I think we may want to make more > > > > improvements in the future to the printing of headers in particular, > > > > but this KIP seems like a clear benefit already. I think we can > > > > take it incrementally. > > > > > > > > I'm +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > -John > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, at 09:57, Badai Aqrandista wrote: > > > >> Hi all > > > >> > > > >> After resurrecting the discussion thread [1] for KIP-431 and have not > > > >> received any further feedback for 2 weeks, I would like to resurrect > > > >> the voting thread [2] for KIP-431. > > > >> > > > >> I have updated KIP-431 wiki page > > > >> ( > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-431%3A+Support+of+printing+additional+ConsumerRecord+fields+in+DefaultMessageFormatter > > > ) > > > >> to address Ismael's comment on that thread [3]. > > > >> > > > >> Does anyone else have other comments or objections about this KIP? > > > >> > > > >> [1] > > > >> > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/raabf3268ed05931b8a048fce0d6cdf6a326aee4b0d89713d6e6998d6%40%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E > > > >> > > > >> [2] > > > >> > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/41fff34873184625370f9e76b8d9257f7a9e7892ab616afe64b4f67c%40%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E > > > >> > > > >> [3] > > > >> > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/99e9cbaad4a0a49b96db104de450c9f488d4b2b03a09b991bcbadbc7%40%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Badai > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- Thanks, Badai