Hi.
I also guess the main reason for using Future was for JDK1.7 support which
is no longer necessary in the current Kafka version.
Actually, there's a KIP about this:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=100829459
but it seems it's not active now.
> I wonder if it is recommended to use
For now, the practical way for asynchronous produce is to use producer
callback. We can easily create CompletableFuture using it:
CompletableFuture<RecordMetadata> future = new CompletableFuture<>();
producer.send(record, (r, e) -> {
if (e != null) {
future.completeExceptionally(e);
} else {
future.complete(r);
}
});
2023年11月14日(火) 18:30 신수웅(Sean Sin) <working...@gmail.com>:
> Dear Apache Kakfa Developers,
>
> I'm 4-year SWE in South Korea.
> I have some questions while watching Kafka Producer API.
>
> *Why Use "Future" and Not "CompletableFuture"?*
>
> In the case of "Future", blocking occurs when calling "*get()*", so I
> thought "Computable Future" would be better when doing more asynchronous
> operations.
>
> I looked at the Java API document
> <
> https://kafka.apache.org/36/javadoc/org/apache/kafka/common/KafkaFuture.html#thenApply(org.apache.kafka.common.KafkaFuture.BaseFunction)
> >
> based on the latest version, version 3.6.x.
>
> If you look at that version, you can see that the Future object provides
> the "toCompletionStage() "method, which can convert "KafkaFuture" to
> "ComputableFuture".
>
> In response to this, I think that in the initial design decision process,
> we considered compatibility issues under JDK 1.8 and the level of knowledge
> of the learning curve or developer when introducing ComputableFuture, but I
> wonder if this is correct.
>
> In addition, I wonder if it is recommended to use the "toCompletionStage()"
> method to produce more non-blocking if we assume JDK 1.8 or higher.
>
> Thanks.
> Su-Ung Shin.
>
--
========================
Okada Haruki
ocadar...@gmail.com
========================
