Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-799 Align behaviour for producer callbacks with documented behaviour

2021-11-15 Thread Jun Rao
Hi, Séamus, Thanks for the KIP. We definitely want the input semantic for the producer callback to be consistent. It's probably better to make the input semantic consistent between the producer callback and the interceptor. If producer.send() throws an ApiException, we may not know the partition

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-799 Align behaviour for producer callbacks with documented behaviour

2021-11-11 Thread John Roesler
Thanks for the reply, Séamus, Ah, I missed that the actual value of the placeholder is that otherwise, you wouldn't know the topic/partition of the error. I guess, on balance, it doesn't feel like this situation really justifies moving to a new callback interface (to pass back the

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-799 Align behaviour for producer callbacks with documented behaviour

2021-11-11 Thread Séamus Ó Ceanainn
Hey John, > did you consider just going back to the original behavior? I hadn't considered going back to the exact original behaviour as I think there's a valid point made in discussions around KAFKA-7412 (I forget whether in a JIRA or PR comment) that returning the topic partition when

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-799 Align behaviour for producer callbacks with documented behaviour

2021-11-11 Thread John Roesler
Thanks for the KIP, Séamus! I agree that the current situation you’re describing doesn’t seem ideal, and it’s probably worth a slight behavior change to fix it. It’s too bad that we introduced that placeholder record, since it seems less error prone for users if we have the invariant that