I don't have an interesting rejected alternative solution to put in the KIP. If there is good alternative solution from anyone in this thread, I am happy to discuss this and update the KIP accordingly.
Thanks, Dong On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is clearer now. > > I noticed that Rejected Alternatives section is empty. > Have you considered any alternative ? > > Cheers > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ted, thanks for catching this. I have updated the sentence to make it > > readable. > > > > Thanks, > > Dong > > > > On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > bq. It the controller_epoch of the incoming MetadataResponse, or if the > > > controller_epoch is the same but the controller_metadata_epoch > > > > > > Can you update the above sentence so that the intention is clearer ? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I have created KIP-232: Detect outdated metadata by adding > > > > ControllerMetadataEpoch field: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > 232%3A+Detect+outdated+metadata+by+adding+ > > ControllerMetadataEpoch+field > > > > . > > > > > > > > The KIP proposes to add fields in MetadataResponse and > > > > UpdateMetadataRequest so that client can reject outdated metadata and > > > avoid > > > > unnecessary OffsetOutOfRangeException. Otherwise there is currently > > race > > > > condition that can cause consumer to reset offset which negatively > > affect > > > > the consumer's availability. > > > > > > > > Feedback and suggestions are welcome! > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Dong > > > > > > > > > >
