Hi Viktor,
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
So you're in favor of disallowing the empty ("") group id altogether (even
for fetching).
Given that ideally no one should be using the empty group id (at least in
a production setting) I think the impact would be minimal in either case.
But as you said, let's hear what others think and I'd be happy to modify
the KIP if needed.
Regards.
--Vahid
From: Viktor Somogyi <viktorsomo...@gmail.com>
To: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>
Date: 05/28/2018 05:18 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the default group id
behavior in KafkaConsumer
Hi Vahid,
(with the argument that using the default group id for offset commit
should not be the user's intention in practice).
Yea, so in my opinion too this use case doesn't seem too practical. Also I
think breaking the offset commit is not smaller from this perspective than
breaking fetch and offset fetch. If we suppose that someone uses the
default group id and we break the offset commit then that might be harder
to detect than breaking the whole thing altogether. (If we think about an
upgrade situation.)
So since we think it is not a practical use case, I think it would be
better to break altogether but ofc that's just my 2 cents :). Let's gather
other's input as well.
Cheers,
Viktor
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Vahid S Hashemian <
vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi Victor,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the KIP.
>
> Yes, to minimize the backward compatibility impact, there would be no
harm
> in letting a stand-alone consumer consume messages under a "" group id
(as
> long as there is no offset commit).
> It would have to knowingly seek to an offset or rely on the
> auto.offset.reset config for the starting offset.
> This way the existing functionality would be preserved for the most part
> (with the argument that using the default group id for offset commit
> should not be the user's intention in practice).
>
> Does it seem reasonable?
>
> Thanks.
> --Vahid
>
>
>
>
> From: Viktor Somogyi <viktorsomo...@gmail.com>
> To: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>
> Date: 05/25/2018 04:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the default group id
> behavior in KafkaConsumer
>
>
>
> Hi Vahid,
>
> When reading your KIP I coldn't fully understand why did you decide at
> failing with "offset_commit" in case #2? Can't we fail with an empty
group
> id even in "fetch" or "fetch_offset"? What was the reason for deciding
to
> fail at "offset_commit"? Was it because of upgrade compatibility
reasons?
>
> Thanks,
> Viktor
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Looks good to me.
> > -------- Original message --------From: Vahid S Hashemian <
> > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> Date: 5/23/18 11:19 AM (GMT-08:00) To:
> > dev@kafka.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the
default
> > group id behavior in KafkaConsumer
> > Hi Ted,
> >
> > Thanks for reviewing the KIP. I updated the KIP and introduced an
error
> > code for the scenario described.
> >
> > --Vahid
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > Date: 04/27/2018 04:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the default group id
> > behavior in KafkaConsumer
> >
> >
> >
> > bq. If they attempt an offset commit they will receive an error.
> >
> > Can you outline what specific error would be encountered ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Vahid S Hashemian <
> > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I have drafted a proposal for improving the behavior of
KafkaConsumer
> > when
> > > using the default group id:
> > >
> >
>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>
> >
> > > 289%3A+Improve+the+default+group+id+behavior+in+KafkaConsumer
> > > The proposal based on the issue and suggestion reported in
KAFKA-6774.
> > >
> > > Your feedback is welcome!
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > --Vahid
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
