Interesting idea. A couple of things to consider: 1. Would we introduce the Message concept to the Consumer too? I think that's what .NET does. 2. If we eventually allow a send to a topic id instead of topic name, would that result in two additional overloads?
Ismael On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 11:38 AM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote: > For the sake of having another option to shoot down, we could take a page > from the .net client and separate the message data from the destination > (i.e. topic or partition). This would get around the need to use a new > verb. For example: > > CompletionStage<RecordMetadata> send(String topic, Message message); > CompletionStage<RecordMetadata> send(TopicPartition topicPartition, Message > message); > > -Jason > > > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 11:30 AM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > I think this still makes sense as a separate KIP. For KIP-691, we are > just > > looking to help define the error contract for the new API. > > > > -Jason > > > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 8:39 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > >> Are we saying that we won't pursue this KIP in favor of the other one? > >> > >> Ismael > >> > >> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 4:15 AM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> > hi Jason > >> > > >> > Thanks for your response. "transmit" is good to me. > >> > > >> > As we discussed by email, KIP-706 is going to be merged to KIP-691( > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/PSfZCQ). Hence, please feel > free > >> to > >> > replace "produce" by "transmit" in KIP-691. > >> > > >> > Best, > >> > Chia-Ping > >> > > >> > On 2021/01/30 00:48:38, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> > > Hi Chia-Ping, > >> > > > >> > > I think this is a great idea. It is a pity that we cannot continue > to > >> use > >> > > the `send` verb, but I don't see how we can. I know we considered > >> > > `transmit` as another option which is closer to `send`. That would > >> avoid > >> > > the redundancy when people choose the common "producer" variable > name. > >> > > > >> > > producer.transmit > >> > > > >> > > instead of > >> > > > >> > > producer.produce > >> > > > >> > > A couple alternatives might be `write` or `append`. I'm happy with > >> > > `produce` as well, but curious if others have thoughts. > >> > > > >> > > -Jason > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:37 AM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Dear all, > >> > > > > >> > > > I'd like to start the discussion thread for KIP-706: > >> > > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=100829459 > >> > > > > >> > > > KIP-706 is proposing to introduce new API "CompletionStage > >> > > > produce(record)" to Producer. Kafka users can leverage > >> CompletionStage > >> > to > >> > > > write asynchronous non-blocking code. CompletionStage is more > >> powerful > >> > than > >> > > > Future and callback. Also, the code using Future and callback can > be > >> > easily > >> > > > re-written by CompletionStage. > >> > > > > >> > > > Cheers, > >> > > > Chia-Ping > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
