I'm happy to have the serialization handler now. I've hit this issue a number of times in the past.
I think the other options are also large enough they probably deserve their own KIPs to properly document the changes. -mitch On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 7:33 PM am <jbfle...@happypants.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > I would like to re-restart the discussion of KIP-399 > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-399%3A+Extend+ProductionExceptionHandler+to+cover+serialization+exceptions > > The last conversation centered on if this KIP should address the issues > around state store/change log divergence with Matthias presenting three > options: > > > > > > > > > > > > *To move this KIP forward, maybe we can just (0) add the handler > forserialization exceptions when writing into any topic and consider it > anincremental improvement. Ie, (1) we keep the door open to let state > andchangelog topic diverge (current status) (2) we allow people to > violateEOS (current state) (3) and we don't improve the handling of DSL > statestore serialization exceptions.We could address (1), (2), and/or (3) > in follow up KIPs.Thoughts? Let us know if you only want to address (0), or > extend thecurrent KIP to include any of (1-3).* > > > I would like to propose we go with option 0 and treat this as an > incremental improvement that applies to any topic and address the issue of > divergence in future KIP(s). > > Feedback, thoughts and musings appreciated, > > anna
