Hu No, the property order does not matter. And yes, anything after "<--" is my comment.
Do you have any suggestions on making it more readable, while keeping it backward compatible? Can we discuss this in the DISCUSS thread? Regards Badai On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 8:05 PM Hu Xi <huxi...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Badai, > > Thanks for the KIP. A quick question from me: > > "CreateTime:1592475472398|key1|3|0|h1=v1,h2=v2|value1 <-- offset 3, > partition 0" > > Seems the partition follows the offset. My question is, does the property > order matter? The partition is always printed following the offset no matter > the order for `print.partition=true` and `print.offset=true` is specified. > How do users get aware of the number `3` means the offset instead of the > partition? I am assuming "<-- offset 3, partition 0" is your comment not the > printed words:-) Am I correct? > > > ________________________________ > 发件人: Badai Aqrandista <ba...@confluent.io> > 发送时间: 2020年7月9日 17:29 > 收件人: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> > 主题: Re: [VOTE] KIP-431: Support of printing additional ConsumerRecord fields > in DefaultMessageFormatter > > David > > Thanks for the vote. That is a good idea. Will start another KIP once > this one is done. > > Regards > Badai > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:46 PM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > Hi Badai, > > > > Thanks for the KIP. I think that it is a nice improvement so I am +1 > > (non-binding). > > > > Long term, I wonder if we could adopt a formatting system similar to > > kafkacat. It > > would reduce the number of properties that one has to set and also allow > > more > > powerful formatting. That could be done as a new formatter for instance. > > > > Example: > > kafkacat -b mybroker -t syslog -f 'Topic %t[%p], offset: %o, key: %k, > > payload: %S bytes: %s\n' > > > > Best, > > David > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 12:30 PM Manikumar <manikumar.re...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Manikumar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:47 AM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > On 7/7/20 7:16 PM, John Roesler wrote: > > > > > Hi Badai, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for picking this up. I've reviewed the KIP document and > > > > > the threads you linked. I think we may want to make more > > > > > improvements in the future to the printing of headers in particular, > > > > > but this KIP seems like a clear benefit already. I think we can > > > > > take it incrementally. > > > > > > > > > > I'm +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, at 09:57, Badai Aqrandista wrote: > > > > >> Hi all > > > > >> > > > > >> After resurrecting the discussion thread [1] for KIP-431 and have not > > > > >> received any further feedback for 2 weeks, I would like to resurrect > > > > >> the voting thread [2] for KIP-431. > > > > >> > > > > >> I have updated KIP-431 wiki page > > > > >> ( > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-431%3A+Support+of+printing+additional+ConsumerRecord+fields+in+DefaultMessageFormatter > > > > ) > > > > >> to address Ismael's comment on that thread [3]. > > > > >> > > > > >> Does anyone else have other comments or objections about this KIP? > > > > >> > > > > >> [1] > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/raabf3268ed05931b8a048fce0d6cdf6a326aee4b0d89713d6e6998d6%40%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E > > > > >> > > > > >> [2] > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/41fff34873184625370f9e76b8d9257f7a9e7892ab616afe64b4f67c%40%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E > > > > >> > > > > >> [3] > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/99e9cbaad4a0a49b96db104de450c9f488d4b2b03a09b991bcbadbc7%40%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Badai > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Badai -- Thanks, Badai
