[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2750?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15139784#comment-15139784
 ] 

Felix GV commented on KAFKA-2750:
---------------------------------

Shouldn't the producer automatically do a graceful degradation of its protocol, 
without even bubbling anything up to the user?

> Sender.java: handleProduceResponse does not check protocol version
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: KAFKA-2750
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2750
>             Project: Kafka
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 0.10.0.0
>            Reporter: Geoff Anderson
>
> If you try run an 0.9 producer against 0.8.2.2 kafka broker, you get a fairly 
> cryptic error message:
> [2015-11-04 18:55:43,583] ERROR Uncaught error in kafka producer I/O thread:  
> (org.apache.kafka.clients.producer.internals.Sender)
> org.apache.kafka.common.protocol.types.SchemaException: Error reading field 
> 'throttle_time_ms': java.nio.BufferUnderflowException
>       at org.apache.kafka.common.protocol.types.Schema.read(Schema.java:71)
>       at 
> org.apache.kafka.clients.NetworkClient.handleCompletedReceives(NetworkClient.java:462)
>       at org.apache.kafka.clients.NetworkClient.poll(NetworkClient.java:279)
>       at 
> org.apache.kafka.clients.producer.internals.Sender.run(Sender.java:216)
>       at 
> org.apache.kafka.clients.producer.internals.Sender.run(Sender.java:141)
> Although we shouldn't expect an 0.9 producer to work against an 0.8.X broker 
> since the protocol version has been increased, perhaps the error could be 
> clearer.
> The cause seems to be that in Sender.java, handleProduceResponse does not to 
> have any mechanism for checking the protocol version of the received produce 
> response - it just calls a constructor which blindly tries to grab the 
> throttle time field which in this case fails.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to