Thanks for the comments Ismael. I have gone ahead and incorporated all your suggestions in the KIP document. You convinced me on adding max.message.bytes :)
Apurva On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Thanks for the KIP. +1 (binding) from me. A few minor comments: > > 1. We should add a note to the backwards compatibility section explaining > the impact of throwing DuplicateSequenceException (a new exception) from > `send`. As I understand it, it's not an issue, but good to include it in > the KIP. > > 2. For clarity, it's good to highlight in some way the new fields in the > protocol definition itself > > 3. I understand that you decided not to add max.message.bytes because it's > unrelated to this KIP. I'll try to persuade you that we should, but it's > not a blocker if you don't agree. The reasons are: 1. The implementation > effort to add it is minimal since it's a topic config like message format > version, 2. It's clearly beneficial for the producer to have that > information, 3. It's compact (just a number), 4. It's nice to avoid another > protocol bump for a small change like that. > > Thanks, > Ismael > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Apurva Mehta <apu...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to start a vote for KIP-192: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > 192+%3A+Provide+cleaner+semantics+when+idempotence+is+enabled > > > > Thanks, > > Apurva > > >
