+list The sentiment makes sense. I just know with the people I talked to the (arguably deceptive) simplicity of the SimpleConsumer was a significant selling point.
On 2012-06-19 01:18, Jay Kreps wrote: > I think the hope was to have a single API and make each piece of > functionality optional. E.g. you could have manual offset management OR you > could have manual partition assignment OR both. You are right that if you > disable everything you are left with something not much better than the > current simple consumer except that it would support leadership changes (a > la replication). But somehow having a single public API seems like a good > practice just to have a single place where monitoring, testing, etc. > > -Jay > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Chris Burroughs > <chris.burrou...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On 06/12/2012 12:59 PM, Jay Kreps wrote: >>> 2. Try to replace the "simple consumer" and "high level consumer" >> with a >>> single, general interface that has all the advantages of both. >> >> I've read through the wiki pages but think I'm missing the forrest for >> the trees. >> >> For a consumer that wants "Manual partition assignment" and "Manual >> offset management", what does the proposed offer over the existing >> SimpleConsumer? >> >
