Thanks for following up! One thought about an older reply from you:
>>>> I strongly disagree here. The purpose of this handler isn't *just* to >>>> make a decision for streams. There may also be desirable side effects that >>>> users wish to cause when production exceptions occur. There may be >>>> side-effects that they wish to cause when AuthenticationExceptions occur, >>>> as well. We should still give them the hooks to preform those side effects. And your follow up: >> - I think I would rather invoke it for all exceptions that could occur >> from attempting to produce - even those exceptions were returning CONTINUE >> may not be a good idea (e.g. Authorization exception). Until there is a >> different type for exceptions that are totally fatal (for example a >> FatalStreamsException or some sort), maintaining a list of exceptions that >> you can intercept with this handler and exceptions you cannot would be >> really error-prone and hard to keep correct. I understand what you are saying, however, consider that Streams needs to die for a fatal exception. Thus, if you call the handler for a fatal exception, we would need to ignore the return value and fail -- this seems to be rather intuitive. Furthermore, users can register an uncaught-exception-handler and side effects for fatal errors can be triggered there. Btw: an AuthorizationException is fatal -- not sure what you mean by an "totally fatal" exception -- there is no superlative to fatal from my understanding. About maintaining a list of exceptions: I don't think this is too hard, and users also don't need to worry about it IMHO. We would only exclude exception Streams can handle itself (like ProducerFencedException) -- thus, if the handler has code to react to this, it would not be bad, as this code is just never called. In case that there is an exception Streams could actually handle but we still call the handler (ie, bug), there should be no harm either -- the handler needs to return either CONTINUE or FAIL and we would obey. It could only happen, that Streams dies---as request by the user(!)---even if Streams could actually handle the error and move on. But this seems to be not a issue from my point of view. Thus, I am still in favor of not calling the ProductionExceptionHandler for fatal exception. About the "always continue" case. Sounds good to me to remove it (not sure why we need it in test package?) and to rename the "failing" handler to "Default" (even if "default" is less descriptive and I would still prefer "Fail" in the name). Last question: >> - Continue to *only* invoke it on the first exception that we >> encounter (before sendException is set) What is there reasoning for invoking the handler only for the first exception? -Matthias On 11/20/17 10:43 AM, Matt Farmer wrote: > Alright, here are some updates I'm planning to make after thinking on this > for awhile: > > - Given that the "always continue" handler isn't something I'd recommend > for production use as is, I'm going to move it into the test namespace and > remove it from mention in the public API. > - I'm going to rename the "AlwaysFailProductionExceptionHandler" to > "DefaultProductionExceptionHandler" > - Given that the API for the exception handler involves being invoked by > streams to make a decision about whether or not to continue — I think that > we should: > - Continue to *only* invoke it on the first exception that we > encounter (before sendException is set) > - Stop invoking it for the self-healing fenced exceptions. > - I think I would rather invoke it for all exceptions that could occur > from attempting to produce - even those exceptions were returning CONTINUE > may not be a good idea (e.g. Authorization exception). Until there is a > different type for exceptions that are totally fatal (for example a > FatalStreamsException or some sort), maintaining a list of exceptions that > you can intercept with this handler and exceptions you cannot would be > really error-prone and hard to keep correct. > - I'm happy to file a KIP for the creation of this new Exception type > if there is interest. > > @ Matthias — What do you think about the above? > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:44 AM Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> wrote: > >> I responded before reading your code review and didn't see the bit about >> how ProducerFencedException is self-healing. This error handling logic is >> *quite* confusing to reason about... I think I'm going to sit down with >> the code a bit more today, but I'm inclined to think that if the fenced >> exceptions are, indeed, self healing that we still invoke the handler but >> ignore its result for those exceptions. >> >> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:37 AM Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> wrote: >> >>> Hi there, >>> >>> Following up here... >>> >>>> One tiny comment: I would prefer to remove the "Always" from the >>> handler implementation names -- it sounds "cleaner" to me without it. >>> >>> Let me think on this. I generally prefer expressiveness to clean-ness, >>> and I think that comes out in the names I chose for things. The straw man >>> in my head is the person that tried to substitute in the "AlwaysContinue" >>> variant and the "Always" is a trigger to really consider whether or not >>> they *always* want to try to continue. >>> >>> To be truthful, after some thought, using the "AlwaysContinue" variant >>> isn't something I'd recommend generally in a production system. Ideally >>> these handlers are targeted at handling a specific series of exceptions >>> that a user wants to ignore, and not ignoring all exceptions. More on this >>> in a minute. >>> >>>> For the first category, it seems to not make sense to call the handle but >>> Streams should always fail. If we follow this design, the KIP should list >>> all exceptions for which the handler is not called. >>> >>> I strongly disagree here. The purpose of this handler isn't *just* to >>> make a decision for streams. There may also be desirable side effects that >>> users wish to cause when production exceptions occur. There may be >>> side-effects that they wish to cause when AuthenticationExceptions occur, >>> as well. We should still give them the hooks to preform those side effects. >>> >>> In light of the above, I'm thinking that the >>> "AlwaysContinueProductionExceptionHandler" variant should probably be >>> removed from the public API and moved into tests since that's where it's >>> most useful. The more I think on it, the more I feel that having that in >>> the public API is a landmine. If you agree, then, we can rename the >>> "AlwaysFailProductionExceptionHandler" to >>> "DefaultProductionExceptionHandler". >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:13 PM Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I just review the PR, and there is one thing we should discuss. >>>> >>>> There are different types of exceptions that could occur. Some apply to >>>> all records (like Authorization exception) while others are for single >>>> records only (like record too large). >>>> >>>> For the first category, it seems to not make sense to call the handle >>>> but Streams should always fail. If we follow this design, the KIP should >>>> list all exceptions for which the handler is not called. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> >>>> -Matthias >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/10/17 2:56 PM, Matthias J. Sax wrote: >>>>> Just catching up on this KIP. >>>>> >>>>> One tiny comment: I would prefer to remove the "Always" from the >>>> handler >>>>> implementation names -- it sounds "cleaner" to me without it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Matthias >>>>> >>>>> On 11/5/17 12:57 PM, Matt Farmer wrote: >>>>>> It is agreed, then. I've updated the pull request. I'm trying to also >>>>>> update the KIP accordingly, but cwiki is being slow and dropping >>>>>> connections..... I'll try again a bit later but please consider the >>>> KIP >>>>>> updated for all intents and purposes. heh. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 3:45 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> That makes sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Guozhang >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interesting. I'm not sure I agree. I've been bitten many times by >>>>>>>> unintentionally shipping code that fails to properly implement >>>> logging. I >>>>>>>> always discover this at the exact *worst* moment, too. (Normally at >>>> 3 AM >>>>>>>> during an on-call shift. Hah.) However, if others feel the same way >>>> I >>>>>>> could >>>>>>>> probably be convinced to remove it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We could also meet halfway and say that when a customized >>>>>>>> ProductionExceptionHandler instructs Streams to CONTINUE, we log at >>>> DEBUG >>>>>>>> level instead of WARN level. Would that alternative be appealing to >>>> you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 12:32 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the updates. I made a pass over the wiki again and it >>>> looks >>>>>>>>> good. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> About whether record collector should still internally log the >>>> error in >>>>>>>>> addition to what the customized ProductionExceptionHandler does. I >>>>>>>>> personally would prefer only to log if the returned value is FAIL >>>> to >>>>>>>>> indicate that this thread is going to shutdown and trigger the >>>>>>> exception >>>>>>>>> handler. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Guozhang >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello, a bit later than I'd anticipated, but I've updated this >>>> KIP as >>>>>>>>>> outlined above. The updated KIP is now ready for review again! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 1:03 PM Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ah. I actually created both of those in the PR and forgot to >>>>>>> mention >>>>>>>>> them >>>>>>>>>>> by name in the KIP! Thanks for pointing out the oversight. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I’ll revise the KIP this afternoon accordingly. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The logging is actually provided for in the record collector. >>>>>>>> Whenever >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> handler continues it’ll log a warning to ensure that it’s >>>>>>>> *impossible* >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> write a handler that totally suppresses production exceptions >>>> from >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> log. >>>>>>>>>>> As such, the default continue handler just returns the continue >>>>>>>> value. >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>> can add details about those semantics to the KIP as well. >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 12:46 PM Matthias J. Sax < >>>>>>>> matth...@confluent.io >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> One more comment. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You mention a default implementation for the handler that >>>> fails. I >>>>>>>>>>>> think, this should be part of the public API and thus should >>>> have >>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>> proper defined named that is mentioned in the KIP. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We could also add a second implementation for the >>>> log-and-move-on >>>>>>>>>>>> strategy, as both are the two most common cases. This class >>>> should >>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>> be part of public API (so users can just set in the config) >>>> with a >>>>>>>>>>>> proper name. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I like the KIP a lot! Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/1/17 12:23 AM, Matt Farmer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the heads up. Yes, I think my changes are compatible >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> PR, but there will be a merge conflict that happens whenever >>>> one >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> PRs >>>>>>>>>>>>> is merged. Happy to reconcile the changes in my PR if 4148 goes >>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>> first. :) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 6:44 PM Guozhang Wang < >>>>>>> wangg...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That sounds reasonable, thanks Matt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the implementation, please note that there is another >>>>>>>>> ongoing >>>>>>>>>> PR >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that may touch the same classes that you are working on: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4148 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it may help if you can also take a look at that PR and see >>>>>>> if >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible with your changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've opened this pull request to implement the KIP as >>>>>>> currently >>>>>>>>>>>> written: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4165. It still needs >>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but largely represents the shape I was going for. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there are more points that folks would like to discuss, >>>>>>>> please >>>>>>>>>> let >>>>>>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know. If I don't hear anything by tomorrow afternoon I'll >>>>>>>> probably >>>>>>>>>>>> start >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [VOTE] thread. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:33 PM Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can’t think of a reason that would be problematic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of the time I would write a handler like this, I either >>>>>>>> want >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore the error or fail and bring everything down so that I >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>> spin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back up later and resume from earlier offsets. When we start >>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crashing we’ll eventually try to process the message we >>>>>>> failed >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m concerned that “putting in a queue for later” opens you >>>>>>> up >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> putting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> messages into the destination topic in an unexpected order. >>>>>>>>> However >>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others feel differently, I’m happy to talk about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 7:10 PM Guozhang Wang < >>>>>>>>> wangg...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metadata is always null if an exception occurred while >>>>>>> trying >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is right. Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I looked at the example code, and one thing I realized that >>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not passing the context in the handle function, we may not >>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic to send the fail records into another queue for >>>> future >>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would people think that would be a big issue? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Matt Farmer < >>>> m...@frmr.me >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've updated the KIP based on this conversation, and made >>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface, config setting, and parameters line up more >>>>>>>> closely >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface in KIP-161 (deserialization handler). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe there are a few specific questions I need to >>>>>>> reply >>>>>>>>>>>> to..... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question I had about then handle parameters are >>>> around >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should it be `ProducerRecord<byte[], byte[]>`, or be >>>>>>>> generics >>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `ProducerRecord<? extends K, ? extends V>` or >>>>>>>>> `ProducerRecord<? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Object, ? extends Object>`? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point in the code we're guaranteed that this is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ProducerRecord<byte[], byte[]>, so the generics would just >>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> harder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to work with the key and value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, should the handle function include the >>>>>>>> `RecordMetadata` >>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case it is not null? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is >>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metadata is always null if an exception occurred while >>>>>>> trying >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We may probably try to write down at least the following >>>>>>>>>> handling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see if the given API is sufficient for it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've added some examples to the KIP. Let me know what you >>>>>>>>> think. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:00 PM Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for this feedback. I’m at a conference right now >>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updating the KIP again with details from this >>>> conversation >>>>>>>>> later >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll shoot you a more detailed response then! :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 8:16 PM Guozhang Wang < >>>>>>>>>> wangg...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP Matt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the handle interface of >>>>>>>>>> ProductionExceptionHandlerResp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onse, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you write it on the wiki also, along with the actual >>>>>>> added >>>>>>>>>> config >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (e.g. what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- >>>>>>>> 161%3A+streams+ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserialization+exception+handlers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The question I had about then handle parameters are >>>>>>> around >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should it be `ProducerRecord<byte[], byte[]>`, or be >>>>>>>> generics >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `ProducerRecord<? extends K, ? extends V>` or >>>>>>>>> `ProducerRecord<? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Object, ? extends Object>`? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, should the handle function include the >>>>>>>> `RecordMetadata` >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case it is not null? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We may probably try to write down at least the following >>>>>>>>>> handling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see if the given API is sufficient for it: 1) throw >>>>>>>> exception >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> immediately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fail fast and stop the world, 2) log the error and >>>>>>> drop >>>>>>>>>> record >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceed silently, 3) send such errors to a specific >>>>>>> "error" >>>>>>>>>> Kafka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record it as an app-level metrics ( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#kafka_streams_ >>>>>>>>>> monitoring >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monitoring. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Matt Farmer < >>>>>>> m...@frmr.me >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did some more digging tonight. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Ted: It looks like the deserialization handler uses >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "default.deserialization.exception.handler" for the >>>>>>>> config >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name. No >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ".class" on the end. I'm inclined to think this should >>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "default.production.exception.handler". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:22 PM Matt Farmer < >>>>>>> m...@frmr.me >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, I've dug into this a little bit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think getting access to the serialized record is >>>>>>>>> possible, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the naming and return type is certainly doable. >>>>>>> However, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hooking into the onCompletion callback we have no >>>>>>>> guarantee >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ProcessorContext state hasn't changed by the time this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handler >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs. So I think the signature would change to >>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ProductionExceptionHandlerResponse handle(final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ProducerRecord<..> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Exception exception) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would this be acceptable? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 7:33 PM Matt Farmer < >>>>>>>> m...@frmr.me> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah good idea. Hmmm. I can line up the naming and >>>>>>> return >>>>>>>>> type >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure if I can get my hands on the context and the >>>>>>> record >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other changes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me dig in and follow up here tomorrow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 7:14 PM Matthias J. Sax < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matth...@confluent.io> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you familiar with KIP-161? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- >>>>>>>> 161%3A+streams+ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deserialization+exception+handlers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thinks, we should align the design (parameter >>>>>>> naming, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class names etc) of KIP-210 to KIP-161 to get a >>>>>>> unified >>>>>>>>>>>>>> user >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/17 4:20 PM, Matt Farmer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll create the JIRA ticket. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that config name will work. I’ll update the >>>>>>>> KIP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accordingly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:09 PM Ted Yu < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yuzhih...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you create JIRA that corresponds to the KIP ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the new config, how about naming it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production.exception.processor.class >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? This way it is clear that class name should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Matt Farmer < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m...@frmr.me> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the discussion thread for the KIP that I >>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> filed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 210+-+Provide+for+custom+ >>>>>>>> error+handling++when+Kafka+ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streams+fails+to+produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to getting some feedback from >>>>>>> folks >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working toward a solution we can contribute back. >>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matt Farmer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> -- Guozhang >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
