Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Vahid S Hashemian < > > > > > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

implied > > by > > > > > "deprecated" in the Kafka project. > > > > > I googled it a bit and it doesn't seem that deprecation > > conventionally > > > > > implies termination of support (or anything that could negatively > > > im

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

it a bit and it doesn't seem that deprecation > > conventionally > > > > > implies termination of support (or anything that could negatively > > > impact > > > > > existing users). That's my interpretation too. > > > > > It would be

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

sers). That's my interpretation too. > > > > It would be good to know if Kafka follows a different interpretation > of > > > > the term. > > > > > > > > If my understanding of the term is correct, since we are not yet > > > targeting >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

oesn't seem that deprecation > > conventionally > > > > > implies termination of support (or anything that could negatively > > > impact > > > > > existing users). That's my interpretation too. > > > > > It would be good to know if Kafka follows a

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

> > > > > If my understanding of the term is correct, since we are not yet > > > targeting > > > > a certain major release in which the old consumer will be removed, I > > > don't > > > > see any harm in marking it as deprecated. > >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

lease in which the old consumer will be removed, I > > don't > > > see any harm in marking it as deprecated. > > > There will be enough time to plan and implement the migration, if the > > > community decides that's the way to go, before phasing

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

ill pick the Java consumer without any > > confusion. And existing users will know that Kafka is preparing for the > > old consumer's retirement. > > > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > From: Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> > >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

ka is preparing for the > old consumer's retirement. > > --Vahid > > > > > From: Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> > To: "dev@kafka.apache.org" <dev@kafka.apache.org> > Date: 01/05/2017 06:55 PM > Subject:Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Cons

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

. --Vahid From: Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> To: "dev@kafka.apache.org" <dev@kafka.apache.org> Date: 01/05/2017 06:55 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation While I realize this only marks the old consumer as deprecated and

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

While I realize this only marks the old consumer as deprecated and not a complete removal, I agree that it is somewhat premature to do this prior to having a migration process implemented. Onur has described this in detail in the earlier thread: http://markmail.org/message/ekv352zy7xttco5s and I'm

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

I cant speak for anyone else, but a rolling upgrade is definitely how we (LinkedIn) will do the migration. On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > it sounds good to have > it, but that's probably not how people will end up migrati >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

Since the APIs are super different, I expect migrating from the old to the new consumer will involve some re-write of the app that does the consuming. In most such cases, the upgrade path involves running both versions side-by-side for a while, validating results and then retiring the old version.

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

im all for (working towards) getting rid of old code, but there's still no solid migration path - you'll be "stranding" users on deprecated, no longer maintained code with no "safe" way out that does not involve downtime (specifically old and new consumers cannot correctly divide up partitions

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

Very strong support from me too :) On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Vahid S Hashemian wrote: > Hi all, > > There was some discussion recently on deprecating the old consumer ( > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg59084.html). > Ismael suggested to

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

org > Date: 01/05/2017 12:16 PM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation > Sent by:isma...@gmail.com > > > > Thanks Vahid, +1 (predictably). Worth mentioning in the KIP that > compatibility with older brokers (0.10.0 and later) is another fea

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

Thanks Ismael. I added that to the KIP. From: Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> To: dev@kafka.apache.org Date: 01/05/2017 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation Sent by:isma...@gmail.com Thanks Vahid, +1 (predictably). Worth ment

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

Thanks Vahid, +1 (predictably). Worth mentioning in the KIP that compatibility with older brokers (0.10.0 and later) is another feature that will only be supported by the Java consumer. Ismael On 5 Jan 2017 8:10 pm, "Vahid S Hashemian" wrote: > Hi all, > > There was

[DISCUSS] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

Hi all, There was some discussion recently on deprecating the old consumer ( https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg59084.html). Ismael suggested to cover the discussion and voting of major deprecations like this under a KIP. So I started KIP-109 (