We had some additional discussions on the discussion thread. Pushing up this thread to resume voting.
On 3/11/15, 8:47 PM, "Jay Kreps" <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: >Yeah guys, I'd like to second that. I'd really really love to get the >quality of these to the point where we could broadly solicit user input >and >use them as a permanent document of the alternatives and rationale. > >I know it is a little painful to have process, but I think we all saw what >happened to the previous clients as public interfaces so I really really >really want us to just be incredibly thoughtful and disciplined as we make >changes. I think we all want to avoid another "client rewrite". > >To second Joe's question in a more specific way, I think an alternative I >don't see considered to give close() a bounded time is just to enforce the >request time on the client side, which will cause all requests to be >failed >after the request timeout expires. This was the same behavior as for >flush. >In the case where the user just wants to ensure close doesn't block >forever >I think that may be sufficient? > >So one alternative might be to just do that request timeout feature and >add >a new producer config that is something like > abort.on.failure=false >which causes the producer to hard exit if it can't send a request. Which I >think is closer to what you want, with this just being a way to implement >that behavior. > >I'm not sure if this is better or worse, but we should be sure before we >make the change. > >I also have a concern about > producer.close(0, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS) >not meaning close with a timeout of 0 ms. > >I realize this exists in other java apis, but it is so confusing it even >confused us into having that recent producer bug because of course all the >other numbers mean "wait that long". > >I'd propose > close()--block until all completed > close(0, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)--block for 0 ms > close(5, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)--block for 5 ms > close(-1, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)--error because blocking for negative ms >would mean completing in the past :-) > >-Jay > >On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Joe Stein <joe.st...@stealth.ly> wrote: > >> Could the KIP confluence please have updated the discussion thread link, >> thanks... could you also remove the template boilerplate at the top >>"*This >> page is meant as a template ..*" so we can capture it for the release >> cleanly. >> >> Also I don't really/fully understand how this is different than >> flush(time); close() and why close has its own timeout also? >> >> Lastly, what is the forceClose flag? This isn't documented in the public >> interface so it isn't clear how to completely use the feature just by >> reading the KIP. >> >> ~ Joe Stein >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> >> http://www.stealth.ly >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > +1 (binding) >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Jiangjie Qin >><j...@linkedin.com.invalid >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-15+-+Add+a+close+me >>thod+with+a+timeout+in+the+producer >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > -- Guozhang >> > >>
