Re: KIP-57: Interoperable LZ4 Framing

Agree. On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Ismael Juma wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Dana Powers wrote: > >> Updated: >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-57+-+Interoperable+LZ4+Framing >> >> Should I restart the vote? >> > >

Re: KIP-57: Interoperable LZ4 Framing

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Dana Powers wrote: > Updated: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-57+-+Interoperable+LZ4+Framing > > Should I restart the vote? > I think the update is small enough that we don't need to restart the vote. Ismael

Re: KIP-57: Interoperable LZ4 Framing

Ok -- removed Public Interfaces discussion. It should be up to date w/ PR review comments now. -Dana On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Ismael Juma wrote: > One more suggestion Dana, I would remove the "Public interfaces" section as > those classes are not actually public (only

Re: KIP-57: Interoperable LZ4 Framing

Updated: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-57+-+Interoperable+LZ4+Framing Should I restart the vote? -Dana On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Ismael Juma wrote: > On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Dana Powers wrote: >> >> > 2. We're

Re: KIP-57: Interoperable LZ4 Framing

One more suggestion Dana, I would remove the "Public interfaces" section as those classes are not actually public (only the classes with Javadoc are public: https://kafka.apache.org/090/javadoc/index.html) and the information in the KIP is a bit stale when compared to the PR. Ismael On Fri, May

Re: KIP-57: Interoperable LZ4 Framing

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Dana Powers wrote: > > > 2. We're completely disabling checksumming of the compressed payload on > > consumption. Normally you'd want to validate each level of framing for > > correct end-to-end validation. You could still do this (albeit

Re: KIP-57: Interoperable LZ4 Framing

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava wrote: > Two questions: > > 1. My understanding based on KIP-35 is that this won't be a problem for > clients that want to support older broker versions since they will use v0 > produce requests with broken checksum to send

Re: KIP-57: Interoperable LZ4 Framing

Two questions: 1. My understanding based on KIP-35 is that this won't be a problem for clients that want to support older broker versions since they will use v0 produce requests with broken checksum to send to those, and any broker advertising support for v1 produce requests will also support

Re: KIP-57: Interoperable LZ4 Framing

Hi Dana, Thank you for proposing this fix. It looks great to me (and LinkedIn, who are running trunk confirmed that they did not use LZ4 yet). Since for 0.10.0 time is of essence, do you mind starting a voting thread in parallel? Gwen On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Dana Powers

Re: KIP-57: Interoperable LZ4 Framing

Thanks for submitting the KIP Dana. I think it would make a lot of sense to include this change as part of the bump to message format 1 (although it's a bit tight given the current release plan). Ismael On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Dana Powers wrote: > Hi all, > >