Re: Does adding ConsumerTimeoutException make the code more robust?

2014-12-01 Thread Ewen Cheslack-Postava 
No, hasNext will return immediately if data is available. The consumer
timeout is only helpful if your application can't safely block on the
iterator indefinitely.

-Ewen

On Sat, Nov 29, 2014, at 08:35 PM, Rahul Amaram wrote:
 Yes, I have configured consumer timeout config.
 
 Let me put my query other way. Is it possible that it.hasNext() could be 
 blocked even when there are messages available, In which case using 
 Consumer Timeout could help?
 
 Thanks,
 Rahul.
 
 On Saturday 29 November 2014 09:56 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
  By default, it.hasNext() blocks when there is no more message to consume.
  So catching ConsumerTimeoutException doesn't make any difference. You only
  need to handle ConsumerTimeoutException if you have customized the consumer
  timeout config.
 
  Thanks,
 
  Jun
 
  On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Rahul Amaram rahul.ama...@vizury.com
  wrote:
 
  Hi,
 
  I am just wondering if the below snippet
 
  ConsumerIteratorbyte[], byte[]) it = ...
 
  while (True)
   try {
   while (it.hasNext()) {
   ...
   ...
   ...
   } catch (ConsumerTimeoutException e) {
   // do nothing
   }
  }
 
  would be more robust than
 
  while(it.hasNext()) {
  ...
  ...
  ...
  }
 
  i.e. by setting a consumer timeout, catching it and again just waiting for
  the next message make it more robust?
 
  Regards,
  Rahul.

Re: Does adding ConsumerTimeoutException make the code more robust?

2014-11-29 Thread Jun Rao 
By default, it.hasNext() blocks when there is no more message to consume.
So catching ConsumerTimeoutException doesn't make any difference. You only
need to handle ConsumerTimeoutException if you have customized the consumer
timeout config.

Thanks,

Jun

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Rahul Amaram rahul.ama...@vizury.com
wrote:


 Hi,

 I am just wondering if the below snippet

 ConsumerIteratorbyte[], byte[]) it = ...

 while (True)
 try {
 while (it.hasNext()) {
 ...
 ...
 ...
 } catch (ConsumerTimeoutException e) {
 // do nothing
 }
 }

 would be more robust than

 while(it.hasNext()) {
 ...
 ...
 ...
 }

 i.e. by setting a consumer timeout, catching it and again just waiting for
 the next message make it more robust?

 Regards,
 Rahul.

Re: Does adding ConsumerTimeoutException make the code more robust?

2014-11-29 Thread Rahul Amaram 

Yes, I have configured consumer timeout config.

Let me put my query other way. Is it possible that it.hasNext() could be 
blocked even when there are messages available, In which case using 
Consumer Timeout could help?


Thanks,
Rahul.

On Saturday 29 November 2014 09:56 PM, Jun Rao wrote:

By default, it.hasNext() blocks when there is no more message to consume.
So catching ConsumerTimeoutException doesn't make any difference. You only
need to handle ConsumerTimeoutException if you have customized the consumer
timeout config.

Thanks,

Jun

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Rahul Amaram rahul.ama...@vizury.com
wrote:


Hi,

I am just wondering if the below snippet

ConsumerIteratorbyte[], byte[]) it = ...

while (True)
 try {
 while (it.hasNext()) {
 ...
 ...
 ...
 } catch (ConsumerTimeoutException e) {
 // do nothing
 }
}

would be more robust than

while(it.hasNext()) {
...
...
...
}

i.e. by setting a consumer timeout, catching it and again just waiting for
the next message make it more robust?

Regards,
Rahul.

Does adding ConsumerTimeoutException make the code more robust?

2014-11-27 Thread Rahul Amaram 


Hi,

I am just wondering if the below snippet

ConsumerIteratorbyte[], byte[]) it = ...

while (True)
try {
while (it.hasNext()) {
...
...
...
} catch (ConsumerTimeoutException e) {
// do nothing
}
}

would be more robust than

while(it.hasNext()) {
...
...
...
}

i.e. by setting a consumer timeout, catching it and again just waiting 
for the next message make it more robust?


Regards,
Rahul.