Hi Grant, Comments below.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > The one thing I want to avoid is to many super specific error codes. I am > not sure how much of a problem it really is but in the case of wire > protocol errors like multiple instances of the same topic, do you have any > thoughts on the error? Should we make a generic InvalidRequest error and > log the detailed message on the broker for client authors to debug? > That is a good question. It would be good to get input from client developers like Dana on this. When looking at the changing the patch, it looks like changing from CREATE > to CREATE_TOPIC might pose some compatibility concerns. Is it alright if we > leave it CREATE for now and revisit after KIP-4? It should not collide with > the ACLs permission since we have control over that because its new. > Yes, I think it's fine to change it afterwards. However, I think we should agree on a sensible plan during the Modify ACL request discussion to make sure things make sense as a whole. The produce request timeout is very similar to this timeout. There is no > bounds validation on -1. Anything less than 0 is essentially 0. We could > validate the timeout too and return an InvalidRequest (or whatever is > discussed above) error in this case too if you prefer. > Fair enough. Probably good to remain consistent (even if I prefer a stricter approach). Ismael
