Hi Kevin, Thanks for your support.
Hi Matthias, I apologize for the confusion. I've deleted the Public Interface sections for now. I think we should focus on discussing its necessity with the community. I'll let it sit for a few more days, and if there are no objections, I will propose changes over the weekend and share them here again. Regards, Rich On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 5:51 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > Rich, > > thanks for resurrecting this KIP. I was not part of the original > discussion back in the day, but personally agree with your assessment > that making headers available in the callbacks would make developer's > life much simpler. > > For the KIP itself, starting with "Public Interface" section, everything > is formatted as "strike through". Can you fix this? It's confusing as > it's apparently not correctly formatted, but unclear which (if any) > parts should be formatted like this. In general, wiki pages have > history, so strike-through should be used rather rarely but the wiki > page should just contain the latest proposal. (If one want to see the > history, it's there anyway). > > > -Matthias > > On 7/23/24 6:36 AM, Kevin Lam wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for starting the discussion. Latency Measurement and Tracing > > Completeness are both good reasons to support this feature, and would be > > interested to see this move forward. > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:15 PM Rich C. <chenjy.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Everyone, > >> > >> I hope this email finds you well. > >> > >> I would like to start a discussion on KIP-512. The initial version of > >> KIP-512 was created in 2019, and I have resurrected it in 2024 with more > >> details about the motivation behind it. > >> > >> You can view the current version of the KIP here: KIP-512: Make Record > >> Headers Available in onAcknowledgement. > >> < > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-512%3A+make+Record+Headers+available+in+onAcknowledgement > >>> > >> > >> Let's focus on discussing the necessity of this feature first. If we > agree > >> on its importance, we can then move on to discussing the proposed > changes. > >> > >> Looking forward to your feedback. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Rich > >> > > >
