The JIRA has the patch and the RB is for comments.

-Jay


On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:00 AM, S Ahmed <sahmed1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks.  This is the page correct?
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/17263/diff/raw/
>
> I was hoping I could download the code and run it locally not just view it.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Neha Narkhede <neha.narkh...@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > There is a link to the reviewboard url on the
> > JIRA<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1227>mentioned above.
> > That will take you to the patch.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, S Ahmed <sahmed1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry I'm new to o/s, how can I look at this patch?
> > >
> > > Would it be mirrored here? https://github.com/apache/kafka
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Cool, I've uploaded a patch and rb here:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1227
> > > >
> > > > -Jay
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Joe Stein <joe.st...@stealth.ly>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > awesome! +1 for checking this in as is as you suggest
> > > > >
> > > > > /*******************************************
> > > > >  Joe Stein
> > > > >  Founder, Principal Consultant
> > > > >  Big Data Open Source Security LLC
> > > > >  http://www.stealth.ly
> > > > >  Twitter: @allthingshadoop <http://www.twitter.com/allthingshadoop
> >
> > > > > ********************************************/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This approach sounds reasonable to me. Since the new code will be
> > not
> > > > be
> > > > > > used in the current kafka jar, we can still release 0.8.1 off
> trunk
> > > > when
> > > > > > it's ready.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jun
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have been working on a rewrite of the producer as described
> in
> > > the
> > > > > wiki
> > > > > > > below and discussed in a few previous threads:
> > > > > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Client+Rewrite
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My code is still has some bugs and is a bit rough in parts, but
> > it
> > > > > > > functions in the basic cases. I did some basic performance
> tests
> > > over
> > > > > > > localhost, and the new approach has paid off quite
> > > significantly--for
> > > > > > small
> > > > > > > (10 byte) messages a single thread on my laptop can send over
> 1m
> > > > > > > messages/second, and with larger messages easily maxes out the
> > > > server.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The difference between "sync" and "async" largely producer
> > > > > > disappears--all
> > > > > > > requests immediately return a future response which can be used
> > to
> > > > get
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > behavior of either sync or async usage and we batch whenever
> the
> > > > > producer
> > > > > > > is under load using a "group commit"-like approach. You can
> > > encourage
> > > > > > > additional batching by incurring a small amount of latency (as
> > > > before).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's talk about how to integrate this code.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a from-scratch rewrite of the producer code. As such it
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > major change. So far I have mostly been working on my own. I'd
> > like
> > > > to
> > > > > > > start getting feedback before I get too far along--no point in
> my
> > > > > > polishing
> > > > > > > things that are going to be significantly revised in review,
> > after
> > > > all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As such here is what I would propose:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. I'll put up a preliminary patch. Since this code is a
> > completely
> > > > > > > standalone module it will not destabilize the existing server
> or
> > > > > existing
> > > > > > > producer (in fact there is no change to those). I will avoid
> > > > including
> > > > > > > build support in this patch until we get the gradle stuff
> worked
> > > out
> > > > so
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > to not break that patch (hopefully that moves along). Let's
> take
> > > this
> > > > > > patch
> > > > > > > "as is" but with no expectation that the code is complete or
> that
> > > > > checkin
> > > > > > > implies everyone agrees with every design decision. I will
> > > follow-up
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > subsequent patches as we do reviews and discussions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. I'll send out a few higher-level topics for discussion
> > threads.
> > > > > Let's
> > > > > > > get to consensus on these. I think micro-reviewing minor
> > > correctness
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > won't be productive until we make higher level decisions. The
> > > topics.
> > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > like to discuss include
> > > > > > > a. The producer code:
> > > > > > >      - The public API
> > > > > > >      - The configurations: their names, and the general knobs
> we
> > > are
> > > > > > >      - Client message serialization
> > > > > > >      - The instrumentation to have
> > > > > > >      - The blocking and batching behavior
> > > > > > > b. The common code and few other cross-cutting policy things
> > > > > > >      - The approach to protocol definition and request
> > > serialization
> > > > > > >      - The config definition helper code
> > > > > > >      - The metrics package
> > > > > > >      - The project layout
> > > > > > >      - The java coding style and the use of java
> > > > > > >      - The approach to logging
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is somewhat backwards, but I think it will be easier to
> > handle
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > that fall out of these discussions against an existing code
> base
> > > that
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > checked in otherwise each revision will be a brand new very
> large
> > > > > patch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If no objections I will toss up this code and kick off some of
> > > these
> > > > > > > discussions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Jay
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to