Here is the jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2043
Thanks, Grant On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:53 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > RecordAccumulator is actually not part of the public api since it's > internal. The public apis are only those in > > http://kafka.apache.org/082/javadoc/index.html?org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/KafkaProducer.html > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for validating that. I was thinking of solving it in the same > > fashion. Though I was unsure if there was/would be a use case to have > > multiple CompressionTypes in the same RecordAccumulator since the API was > > originally created this way. > > > > I would be happy to file a jira and can take on making the change too. > > Since > > RecordAccumulator is part of the public api, should the KIP process be > > followed here as well? > > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > Hi, Grant, > > > > > > The append api seems indeed a bit weird. The compression type is a > > producer > > > level config. Instead of passing it in for each append, we probably > > should > > > just pass it in once during the creation RecordAccumulator. Could you > > file > > > a jira to track this? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jun > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:16 PM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I am reading over the new producer code in an effort to understand > the > > > > implementation more thoroughly and had some questions/feedback. > > > > > > > > Currently > org.apache.kafka.clients.producer.internals.RecordAccumulator > > > > append method accepts the compressionType on a per record basis. It > > looks > > > > like the code would only work on a per batch basis because the > > > > CompressionType is only used when creating a new RecordBatch. My > > > > understanding is this should only support setting per batch at most. > I > > > may > > > > have misread this though. Is there a time where setting per record > > would > > > > make sense? > > > > > > > > public RecordAppendResult append(TopicPartition tp, byte[] key, > > > byte[] > > > > value, CompressionType compression, Callback callback) throws > > > > InterruptedException; > > > > > > > > Why does org.apache.kafka.common.serialization.Serializer Interface > > > require > > > > a topic? Is there a use case where serialization would change based > on > > > > topic? > > > > > > > > public byte[] serialize(String topic, T data); > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Grant > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Grant Henke > > > > Solutions Consultant | Cloudera > > > > ghe...@cloudera.com | 920-980-8979 > > > > twitter.com/ghenke <http://twitter.com/gchenke> | > > > > linkedin.com/in/granthenke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Grant Henke > > Solutions Consultant | Cloudera > > ghe...@cloudera.com | 920-980-8979 > > twitter.com/ghenke <http://twitter.com/gchenke> | > > linkedin.com/in/granthenke > > > -- Grant Henke Solutions Consultant | Cloudera ghe...@cloudera.com | 920-980-8979 twitter.com/ghenke <http://twitter.com/gchenke> | linkedin.com/in/granthenke
