Hello Folks, We have addressed all the comments collected so far, and would like to propose a voting thread this Wednesday. If you have any further comments on this KIP, please feel free to continue sending them on this thread before that.
Guozhang On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote: > +1 for transactional.id. > > -Jason > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If I have to choose between app.id and transactional.instance.id, I'd > > choose the latter. > > > > Renaming transactional.instance.id to transactional.id sounds even > better. > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Apurva Mehta <apu...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > Bumping one suggestion from Apurva above. The name "AppID" has caused > > > some > > > > confusion. We're considering the following renaming: > > > > > > > > 1. AppID -> ProducerId (transaction.app.id -> producer.id) > > > > 2. PID -> IPID (internal producer ID) > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about AppId -> TransactionalId (transaction.app.id -> > > transactional.id > > > ) > > > > > > This makes it clear that this id just needs to be set when the > > application > > > wishes to use transactions. I also think it is more intuitive in the > > > context of how this id is used, viz. to maintain transactions across > > > producer sessions. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Apurva > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > > -- -- Guozhang
