My understanding is that async is not meant to be an immediate send. As to
batching, I've not delved into the code differences.
But batching the sync is not possible at the Producer higher level; at
least that's what I've tried and had no success with, the default and
string encoders cannot handle lists, although the documentation suggests
they can.
I'm glad to be wrong on this; but I've had no luck with the serializer deep
in scala code tree accepting a composite of any type containing either
Message or String. I can batch myself, but doubt this is what any of us
think is the design goal?
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Felix GV <fe...@mate1inc.com> wrote:
> This may not be entirely related to what you're talking about, but why
> would an async producer not be able to meet your throughput needs, and a
> sync producer be able to?
>
> Both sync and async producers can be configured to batch more than one
> message together, and that's pretty much the main thing that's required to
> be able to achieve good throughput, AFAIK.
>
> ...?
>
> --
> Felix
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:49 PM, will martin <wmartin...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Neha. All my data is of 1 type. The serializer in place doesn't
> seem
> > to handle an array of String.
> >
> > The ProducerData I use is a collection of same types of data wrapped in a
> > single defintion, according to as I read spec. Am I to understand that,
> > having a producer batch records itself is unsupported? The async
> producer
> > can't meet my throughput needs and as I understand is targetted at
> implicit
> > load balancing among different client machines.
> >
> > Additionally, the sync producer can meet my needs, but requires more use
> of
> > the lower-level design features. For maintenance, it'd be great if I
> could
> > create a list of Strings, create a ProducerData<String, List<String>> and
> > have this be serialized.
> >
> > It occurs to me that the described serialization may need my attention?
> >
> > Thx
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Neha Narkhede <neha.narkh...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > The producer takes in a "serializer.class" config that it uses to
> > > serialize data sent by the Producer. A Producer instance is tied to
> > > the type of data it is sending, so you won't be able to send data
> > > belonging to diverse types using the same Producer object.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Neha
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:02 AM, will martin <wmartin...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > This use case is defined by the following snippet from the Design
> > section
> > > > of the doc pages.
> > > >
> > > > class Producer {
> > > >
> > > > public void send (ProducerData)
> > > >
> > > > public void send (List<ProducerData>)
> > > >
> > > > public void close()
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > I've tried various composites for the List<ProducerData> argument,
> > > > including strings and Messages. All of these throw serialization
> errors
> > > > deep in the engine.
> > > >
> > > > Is the list form of send supported in 7.1?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > mmartin
> > >
> >
>
