A separate question regarding the proposed API as well: what do you think to also augment the serializers with ByteBuffer return type in order to be symmetric with deserializers?
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 3:32 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello ShunKang, > > Thanks for filing the proposal, and sorry for the late reply! > > I looked over your KIP proposal and the PR, in general I think I agree > that adding an overloaded function with `ByteBuffer` param is beneficial, > but I have a meta question regarding it's impact on Kafka consumer: my > understanding from your PR is that, we can only save memory allocations if > the key/value types happen to be ByteBuffer as well, otherwise we would > still do the `return deserialize(topic, headers, Utils.toArray(data));` > from default impls unless the user customized deserializers is augmented to > handle ByteBuffer directly, right? > > > Guozhang > > > > On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 9:56 AM ShunKang Lin <linshunkang....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi all， >> >> I'd like to start a discussion on KIP-863 which is Reduce >> Fetcher#parseRecord() memory copy. This KIP can reduce Kafka Consumer >> memory allocation by nearly 50% during fetch records. >> >> Please check >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=225152035 >> and https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12545 for more details. >> >> Any feedbacks and comments are welcomed. >> >> Thanks. >> > > > -- > -- Guozhang > -- -- Guozhang
