Maybe I didn't make the message clear enough...
Would using an URI to the constructor (in addition to the properties)
help the API, or anyone see a reason to not do it?
KafkaConsumer consumer = new
KafkaConsumer<>("tcp://localhost:9999?receive.buffer.bytes=-2", new
ByteArrayDeserializer(), new ByteArrayDeserializer());
I could send a Pull Request for that. The framework I would write
would validate if the parameters are valid or not.
Thanks in advance
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Clebert Suconic
<clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At ActiveMQ and ActiveMQ Artemis, ConnectionFactories have an
> interesting feature where you can pass parameters through an URI.
>
> I was looking at Producer and Consumer APIs, and these two classes are
> using a method that I considered old for Artemis resembling HornetQ:
>
> Instead of passing a Properties (aka HashMaps), users would be able to
> create a Consumer or Producer by simply doing:
>
> new Consumer("tcp::/host:port?properties=values;properties=values...etc");
>
> Example:
>
>
> Instead of the following:
>
> Map<String, Object> config = new HashMap<>();
> config.put(ConsumerConfig.BOOTSTRAP_SERVERS_CONFIG, "localhost:9999");
> config.put(ConsumerConfig.RECEIVE_BUFFER_CONFIG, -2);
> new KafkaConsumer<>(config, new ByteArrayDeserializer(), new
> ByteArrayDeserializer());
>
>
>
> Someone could do
>
> new KafkaConsumer<>("tcp://localhost:9999?receive.buffer.bytes=-2",
> new ByteArrayDeserializer(), new ByteArrayDeserializer());
>
>
>
> I don't know if that little API improvement would be welcomed? I would be
> able to send a Pull Request but I don't want to do it if that wouldn't
> be welcomed in the first place:
>
>
> Just an idea... let me know if that is welcomed or not.
>
> If so I can forward the discussion into how I would implement it.
--
Clebert Suconic
