[DISCUSS] KIP-221: Repartition Topic Hints in Streams

Dear community, I would like to initiate discussion on KIP-221 [1] based on issue [2]. Please feel free to comment. [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-221%3A+Repartition+Topic+Hints+in+Streams [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6037 Cheers, Jeyhun

[jira] [Resolved] (KAFKA-6169) Kafka Log should reject negative timestamps

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6169?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Ryan P resolved KAFKA-6169. --- Resolution: Won't Fix > Kafka Log should reject negative timestamps >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-210: Provide for custom error handling when Kafka Streams fails to produce

Bump! I believe I need two more binding +1's to proceed? On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:49 AM Ted Yu wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > +1 (binding) from me. Thanks! > > > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Guozhang

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-220: Add AdminClient into Kafka Streams' ClientSupplier

I like this KIP. Can you also link to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6126 in the KIP? What I am wondering though: if we start to partially (ie, step by step) replace the existing StreamsKafkaClient with Java AdminClient, don't we need more KIPs? For example, if we use purge-api for

[jira] [Created] (KAFKA-6171) [1.0.0] Logging is broken with Windows and Java 9

Juergen Zimmermann created KAFKA-6171: - Summary: [1.0.0] Logging is broken with Windows and Java 9 Key: KAFKA-6171 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6171 Project: Kafka

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-221: Repartition Topic Hints in Streams

Hi, Thanks for your comments. @Ted API is given without much javadoc on the role / meaning of method > parameters. - I thought they are self-explanatory but I will add some more comments in the document. @Matthias - how does this relate to `KStream#through()` ? - The main difference

Re: [DISCUSS]KIP-216: IQ should throw different exceptions for different errors

Thanks for the KIP Vito! I agree with what Guozhang said. The original idea of the Jira was, to give different exceptions for different "recovery" strategies to the user. For example, if a store is currently recreated, a user just need to wait and can query the store later. On the other hand, if

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-210: Provide for custom error handling when Kafka Streams fails to produce

One more comment. You mention a default implementation for the handler that fails. I think, this should be part of the public API and thus should have a proper defined named that is mentioned in the KIP. We could also add a second implementation for the log-and-move-on strategy, as both are the

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-210: Provide for custom error handling when Kafka Streams fails to produce

Ah. I actually created both of those in the PR and forgot to mention them by name in the KIP! Thanks for pointing out the oversight. I’ll revise the KIP this afternoon accordingly. The logging is actually provided for in the record collector. Whenever a handler continues it’ll log a warning to

Re: [VOTE] KIP-210: Provide for custom error handling when Kafka Streams fails to produce

Yes. A KIP needs 3 binding "+1" to be accepted. You can still work on the PR and get it ready to get merged -- I am quite confident that this KIP will be accepted :) -Matthias On 11/4/17 3:56 PM, Matt Farmer wrote: > Bump! I believe I need two more binding +1's to proceed? > > On Thu, Nov 2,

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-209 Connection String Support

I have updated KIP-209. Determined the \", \\ and \; meanings Also introduced the possibility of using $ to translate as system properties. I"m not using an BNF formal language here, as I don't think it's needed.. it seems pretty obvious what it would be accomplished here. On Fri, Oct 27,

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-221: Repartition Topic Hints in Streams

Thanks for the KIP. Two comments/questions: - how does this relate to `KStream#through()` ? - do we really need to add new overload or can we just extends exiting options (cf KIP-182); it would be create if we could just extend existing classes like `Produced` instead of adding new methods to

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-221: Repartition Topic Hints in Streams

w.r.t. KIP-182, KAFKA-5651 has been resolved. But the KIP is still labeled Under Discussion. Should KIP-182 be moved to Adopted state ? On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > Thanks for the KIP. > > Two comments/questions: > > - how does this relate

[jira] [Resolved] (KAFKA-6031) Expose standby replicas endpoints in StreamsMetadata

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6031?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Matthias J. Sax resolved KAFKA-6031. Resolution: Duplicate Closing this because title of KAFKA-6144 is more descriptive. >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-221: Repartition Topic Hints in Streams

API is given without much javadoc on the role / meaning of method parameters. Can you enrich with descriptive javadoc ? On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote: > Dear community, > > I would like to initiate discussion on KIP-221 [1] based on issue [2]. >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-221: Repartition Topic Hints in Streams

Hi. Im not 100 % up to date what version 1.0 DSL looks like ATM. I just would argue that repartitioning should be an own API call like through or something. One can use through or to already to get this. I would argue one should look there instead of overloads Best Jan On 04.11.2017 16:01,

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-213 Support non-key joining in KTable

Hi Gouzhang I hope the wikipage looks better now. made a little more effort into the diagram. Still not ideal but I think it serves its purpose. On 02.11.2017 01:17, Guozhang Wang wrote: Thanks for the KIP writeup Jan. I made a first pass and here are some quick comments: 1. Could we use