Hello, I am trying to revive this thread. I only got 1 binding vote so far.
Please feel free to revisit and comment here. Thanks, On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 00:15, M. Manna <manme...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey IJ, > > Thanks for your interest in the KIP. > > My point was simply that the round-robin should happen even if the key is > not null. As for the importance of key in our case, we treat the key as > metadata. Each key is composed of certain info which are parsed by our > consumer thread. We will then determine whether it's an actionable message > (e.g. process it), or a loopback(ignore it). You could argue, "Why not > append this metadata with the record and parse it there?". But that means > the following: > > 1) I'm always passing null key to achieve this - I would like to pass > Null/Not-Null/Other key i.e. flexibility > 2) Suppose the message size is 99 KB and and max message bytes allowed is > 100K. Now prefixing metadata with message results into the actual message > being 101K. This will fail at producer level and cause a retry/log this in > our DB for future pickup. > > To avoid all these, we are simply proposing this new partitioner class. > but all Kafka new releases will still have DefaultPartitioner as default, > unless they change the prop file to use our new class. > > Regards, > > On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 at 04:05, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > >> Thanks for the KIP. Can you please elaborate on the need for the key in >> this case? The KIP simply states that the key is needed for metadata, but >> doesn't give any more details. >> >> Ismael >> >> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:39 AM M. Manna <manme...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hello, >> > >> > I have made necessary changes as per the original discussion thread, and >> > would like to put it for votes. >> > >> > Thank you very much for your suggestion and guidance so far. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> >
