Hi, Sumant, Thanks for the KIP. +1.
Just a minor clarification. The KIP says "Batches expire in order when max.in.flight.request.per.connection==1". Is that true? It seems that even with max.in.flight.request.per.connection > 1, batches should still expire in order. Jun On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for the KIP. > > For delivery.timeout.ms , since it should be >= linger.ms + > request.timeout.ms + retry.backoff.ms , it seems the default value should > be max(120 seconds, linger.ms + request.timeout.ms + retry.backoff.ms). > > Cheers > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > Thanks for the KIP. +1 (binding) from me. Just a minor suggestion, I > would > > mention the following under "Public Interfaces": > > > > Default value of delivery.timeout.ms = 120 seconds > > Default value of retries will be changed to MAX_INT > > request.timeout.ms – current meaning, but messages are not expired after > > this time. I.e., request.timeout.ms is no longer relevant for batch > > expiry. > > > > The compatibility impact of such changes can remain in the compatibility > > section. Also, I agree about keeping your "reordering" text although it > > seems like the wiki wasn't updated to match what you posted in the > > discussion thread. > > > > Ismael > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Sumant Tambe <suta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I would like to open the vote for KIP-91: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-91+ > > > Provide+Intuitive+User+Timeouts+in+The+Producer > > > > > > Thank you all for your input on the kip so far. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Sumant > > > > > >
