Thanks Harsha. Done.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 1:03 AM Harsha Chintalapani wrote:
> Ryanne,
>Makes sense. Can you please add this under rejected alternatives so
> that everyone has context on why it wasn’t picked.
>
> Thanks,
> Harsha
> On Oct 18, 2018, 8:02 AM -0700, Ryanne Dolan ,
>
Paul Whalen created KAFKA-7523:
--
Summary: TransformerSupplier/ProcessorSupplier enhancements
Key: KAFKA-7523
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7523
Project: Kafka
Issue Type:
SslFactory is not a public interface for others to use. EchoServer is internal
testing.
We should make these as proposed in rejected alternatives to SslFactory and
DefaultSslFactory.
I don’t see any one using a internal class as public API.
-Harsha
On Oct 19, 2018, 3:47 PM -0700, Pellerin,
>> Can you explain why calling SslFactory and DefaultSslFactory cause any
>> issues.
When you say "calling", I guess you mean "naming".
Renaming SslFactory will only cause backwards compatibility issues for
applications that refer to it directly. EchoServer is an example, but maybe
that is
Not sure I got your question ?
Kafka is written mainly in Scala with additional admin functionality and
Client API available in Java. There are some subtle differences but they
are not specific to Kafka?
What is the context of your question?
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 21:32, wrote:
> Hi,
> what
Hi,
Overall the KIP looks good to me.
"Ideally, the interface should be called SslFactory and the built-in
implementation should be called DefaultSslFactory. This was rejected to improve
backwards compatibility for applications that call the SslFactory directly.”
Can you explain why
Hi, since now we have three binding votes(Colin, Matthias, Harsha), if
there are no other opinion, I will go ahead conclude this voting
thread and accept this KIP. Thanks! - Yishun
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:10 PM Harsha Chintalapani wrote:
>
> LGTM. +1 (binding)
>
> --
> Harsha
>
>
> On Oct 18,
I have updated the KIP to use a default constructor in the pluggable SSL
Factory implementation.
I also changed the name of the config to ssl.sslfactory.class and fixed a typo
in the constant names.
I would like your feedback on this version of the KIP.
-Original Message-
From:
Hi there Matthias,
Very useful thoughts indeed. I have considered the exact same approach but
what worries me a bit is that I do not think that will certainly solve the
issue. Imagine the following situation. You have one consumer that is quite
slow so lets say it call poll every 5 seconds, while
Hi,
what is difference between class cluster written in java and class cluster
written in scala.
Thanks
Rate of ingestion is not 150-200rps. Its 150k-200k rps.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:12 PM Suman B N wrote:
> Team,
> We have been observing some partitions being under-replicated. Broker
> version 0.10.2.1. Below actions were carried out but in vain:
>
>- Tried restarting nodes.
>- Tried
bump
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:48 PM Bill Bejeck wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 5:32 PM Ted Yu wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Matthias J. Sax
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > Thanks for the KIP.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> >
What is the status of this KIP?
-Matthias
On 7/19/18 5:17 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Hello Florian,
>
> Sorry for being late... Found myself keep apologizing for late replies
> these days. But I do want to push this KIP's progress forward as I see it
> very important and helpful feature for
Boyang,
what is the status of this KIP?
-Matthias
On 6/17/18 9:21 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP Boyang, I made a pass over the KIP and the PR and have
> some comments:
>
> 1. About the public API, I agree with Matthias that we can consider
> exposing the `innerDeserializer` and
Any thought on my last email about discarding this KIP?
-Matthias
On 9/14/18 11:44 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we recently had a discussion on a different ticket to reduce the size of
> the metadata we need to send:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7149
>
> It seems,
I am not 100% familiar with the details of the consumer code, however I
tend to disagree with:
> There's no difference between the two cases -- if (and only if) the message
> is corrupt, it can't be deserialized. If (and only if) it can't be
> deserialized, it is corrupt.
Assume that a user
Team,
We have been observing some partitions being under-replicated. Broker
version 0.10.2.1. Below actions were carried out but in vain:
- Tried restarting nodes.
- Tried increasing replica fetcher threads. Recommend ideal replica
fetcher threads for a 20 node cluster with 150-200rps
Glad to have you back Vito :)
Some follow up thoughts:
- the current `InvalidStateStoreException` is documents as being
sometimes retry-able. From the JavaDocs:
> These exceptions may be transient [...] Hence, it is valid to backoff and
> retry when handling this exception.
I am wondering
This eases debugging metadata information of consumer groups and offsets in
case of client hungs which we have been facing frequently.
+1 from me. Well done Alex!
-Suman
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 8:36 PM Vahid Hashemian
wrote:
> Thanks for proposing the KIP. Looks good to me overall.
>
> I agree
Hi All,
I would like to call for a vote on KIP-380:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-380%3A+Detect+outdated+control+requests+and+bounced+brokers+using+broker+generation
Here is the discussion thread:
Just my 2 cents.
I am not 100% sure if we would need to change the consumer for this.
While I still think, that KIP-349 might be valuable, it seems to be
complementary/orthogonal to the issue discussed here.
For Kafka Streams, we have a related scenario and what Kafka Streams
does is, to add its
I am looking for some Kafka Developers if you know anyone who is interested
please reach out!
Erica Parker | Senior Technical Recruiter
INT Technologies – A Nationally Recognized Veteran Owned Business
C: (720) 483-7059
W: (720)735-4829
Stay connected with us:
Ask your INT representative about
Done.
On 10/18/18 6:51 PM, Stone Huang wrote:
> JIRA ID: godisren
> Cwiki ID: Ren Jr Huang
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
People a currently quite busy with 2.1.0 and 2.0.1 releases. That's why
the vote might go slow.
Just keep bumping the vote thread on a weekly bases... Thanks for your
patients.
-Matthias
On 10/19/18 1:08 AM, M. Manna wrote:
> Since this has gone quiet, could I prequest 1 more vote here - if
I just realized that there is not Jira for this KIP. Can you please
create one? All KIPs need to have a Jira for tracking.
Thanks.
On 10/10/18 6:51 AM, Damian Guy wrote:
> Hi Wladimir,
>
> Of the two approaches in the KIP - i feel the second approach is cleaner.
> However, am i correct in
Bumping this as I have added some additional details.
This change will require adding a "--bootstrap-server" flag to identify the
current broker/cluster configured "min.insync.replicas".
Regards,
Kevin
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:19 PM Kevin Lu wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> After some feedback, I have
Thanks for proposing the KIP. Looks good to me overall.
I agree with Jason's suggestion that it would be best to keep the current
output format when a single '--group' is present. Because otherwise, there
would be an impact to users who rely on the current output format. Also,
starting with a
Yevhen Tsyba created KAFKA-7522:
---
Summary: As a client of kafka-streams library I want to provide
custom error handlers programmatically
Key: KAFKA-7522
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7522
Bogdan Iordache created KAFKA-7521:
--
Summary: [kafka-streams-scala_2.11] Foreach results in
StackOverflowError
Key: KAFKA-7521
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7521
Project: Kafka
Hi,
first thank you for amazing software kafka. I am studying its code and i need
help to identify design patterns, can you help me please ?
Thanks
Mrkvica
Andras Katona created KAFKA-7520:
Summary: Adding possibility to configure versions in Mirror Maker
ducktape test
Key: KAFKA-7520
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7520
Project: Kafka
Since this has gone quiet, could I prequest 1 more vote here - if anyone
thinks it's worth doing?
Thanks,
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 at 16:14, M. Manna wrote:
> Thanks for reminding me about the "Binding" vote Bill. I remember some
> people with non-binding vote, so jumped the gun a bit too early.
>
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the KIP. I think it makes sense, especially since most of the
group apis are intended for batching anyway.
The only questions I have are about compatibility. For example, the csv
format for resetting offsets is changed, so will we continue to support the
old format? Also, if
Ryanne,
Makes sense. Can you please add this under rejected alternatives so that
everyone has context on why it wasn’t picked.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Oct 18, 2018, 8:02 AM -0700, Ryanne Dolan , wrote:
> Harsha, concerning uReplicator specifically, the project is a major
> inspiration for
34 matches
Mail list logo
