3. Ok. Seems like there is no way around to enforce better semantics and
maintain backward compatibility as well! Let's go ahead with what you
proposed and create a JIRA to fix the semantics in version 4.x. My comment
is resolved here.
--
Divij Vaidya
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 6:47 AM ShunKang Lin <linshunkang....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks for your comment.
>
> This KIP does not modify ByteBufferSerializer#serialize(), so do we need to
> clarify this aspect on motivation?
>
> Best,
> ShunKang
>
> Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk>于2023年4月10日 周一12:37写道：
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > One interesting aspect is that the current `ByteBufferSerializer` avoids
> > copies in the following case:
> >
> > if (data.hasArray()) {
> > final byte[] arr = data.array();
> > if (data.arrayOffset() == 0 && arr.length == data.remaining()) {
> > return arr;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > It would be good to clarify this aspect in the motivation. What kind of
> > copies would we avoid (eg direct byte buffers, byte buffer views, etc.).
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 8:59 AM ShunKang Lin <linshunkang....@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all, I'd like to start a new discussion thread on KIP-872 (Kafka
> > Client)
> > > which proposes that add Serializer#serializeToByteBuffer() to reduce
> > memory
> > > copying.
> > >
> > > KIP:
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=228495828
> > > Thanks, ShunKang
> > >
> >
>
