Jason: Maybe your reply was intended for another KIP ? KIP-278 is about adding version option, not timeout.
Cheers On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:36 AM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi Sasaki, > > Thanks for the KIP. I think the timeout controls the maximum allowed time > that the consumer will block for the next record. Maybe the meaning would > be clearer with the more concise name `--timeout`? That also fits with the > old consumer which overrides the `consumer.timeout.ms` property. > > By the way, it seems like the default value was intentionally set low for > both the old and new consumers, but I'm not sure of the reason. We could > leave the default as it is if we want to be safe, but increasing it seems > ok to me. Perhaps we could start a little lower, though, say 10 seconds? In > any case, we should make it clear to the user that the timeout was reached. > It's surprising to see only the incomplete reported results following a > timeout. > > Thanks, > Jason > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:37 AM, Sasaki Toru <sasaki...@oss.nttdata.com> > wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > I would like to start a discussion for KIP 278. Cloud you please give > > comments and advice ? > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-278+- > > +Add+version+option+to+Kafka%27s+commands> > > > > JIRA ticket and Pull Request are bellow: > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2061> > > <https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/639> > > > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Sasaki > > > > -- > > Sasaki Toru(sasaki...@oss.nttdata.com) NTT DATA CORPORATION > > > > >
