See latest reply to Jan's note. I think I unnecessarily broadened the scope of this KIP to the point where it sounded like it handles all sorts of exceptions. The scope should be strictly limited to "poison pill" records for now. Will update KIP,
Thanks Eno > On 26 May 2017, at 16:16, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> wrote: > > "bad" for this case would mean, that we got an > `DeserializationException`. I am not sure if any other processing error > should be covered? > > @Eno: this raises one one question. Might it be better to allow for two > handlers instead of one? One for deserialization exception and one for > all other exceptions from user code? > > Just a thought. > > > -Matthias > > On 5/26/17 7:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >>> On May 26, 2017, at 5:13 AM, Eno Thereska <eno.there...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> With regard to `DeserializationException`, do you thing it might make >>>> sense to have a "dead letter queue" as a feature to provide out-of-the-box? >>> >>> We could provide a special topic where bad messages go to, and then we'd >>> have to add a config option for the user to provide a topic. Is that what >>> you're thinking? >>> >> >> For various definitions of "bad"?? >> >
