Hi Richard, Thanks for the invitation! I do think it would be safer to introduce a new poll method than to change the semantics of the old one. I've been mulling about whether the new one could still have (slightly different) async semantics with a timeout of 0. If possible, I'd like to avoid introducing another new "asyncPoll".
I'm planning to run some experiments and dig into the implementation a bit more before solidifying the proposal. I'll update the KIP as you suggest at that point, and then can call for another round of reviews and voting. Thanks, -John On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Richard Yu <yohan.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi John, > > Do you have a preference for fixing the poll() method (e.g. using asyncPoll > or just sticking with the current method but with an extra timeout > parameter) ? I think your current proposition for KIP-288 is better than > what I have on my side. If you think there is something that you want to > add, you could go ahead and change KIP-266 to your liking. Just to note > that it would be preferable that if one of us modifies this KIP, it would > be best to mention your change on this thread to let each other know (makes > it easier to coordinate progress). > > Thanks, > Richard > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:07 PM, John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Ok, I'll close the discussion on KIP-288 and mark it discarded. > > > > We can solidify the design for poll in KIP-266, and once it's approved, > > I'll coordinate with Qiang Zhao on the PR for the poll part of the work. > > Once that is merged, you'll have a clean slate for the rest of the work. > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Richard Yu <yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > I think that you could finish your PR that corresponds with KIP-288 and > > > merge it. I can finish my side of the work afterwards. > > > > > > On another note, adding an asynchronized version of poll() would make > > > sense, particularily since the current version of Kafka does not > support > > > it. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Richar > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:30 PM, John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Cross-pollinating from some discussion we've had on KIP-288, > > > > > > > > I think there's a good reason that poll() takes a timeout when none > of > > > the > > > > other methods do, and it's relevant to this discussion. The timeout > in > > > > poll() is effectively implementing a long-poll API (on the client > side, > > > so > > > > it's not really long-poll, but the programmer-facing behavior is the > > > same). > > > > The timeout isn't really bounding the execution time of the method, > but > > > > instead giving a max time that callers are willing to wait around and > > see > > > > if any results show up. > > > > > > > > If I understand the code sufficiently, it would be perfectly > reasonable > > > for > > > > a caller to use a timeout of 0 to implement async poll, it would just > > > mean > > > > that KafkaConsumer would just check on each call if there's a > response > > > > ready and if not, fire off a new request without waiting for a > > response. > > > > > > > > As such, it seems inappropriate to throw a ClientTimeoutException > from > > > > poll(), except possibly if the initial phase of ensuring an > assignment > > > > times out. We wouldn't want the method contract to be "returns a > > > non-empty > > > > collection or throws a ClientTimeoutException" > > > > > > > > Now, I'm wondering if we should actually consider one of my rejected > > > > alternatives, to treat the "operation timeout" as a separate > parameter > > > from > > > > the "long-poll time". Or maybe adding an "asyncPoll(timeout, time > > unit)" > > > > that only uses the timeout to bound metadata updates and otherwise > > > behaves > > > > like the current "poll(0)". > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > -John > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:05 PM, John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey Richard, > > > > > > > > > > As you noticed, the newly introduced KIP-288 overlaps with this > one. > > > > Sorry > > > > > for stepping on your toes... How would you like to proceed? I'm > happy > > > to > > > > > "close" KIP-288 in deference to this KIP. > > > > > > > > > > With respect to poll(), reading this discussion gave me a new idea > > for > > > > > providing a non-breaking update path... What if we introduce a new > > > > variant > > > > > 'poll(long timeout, TimeUnit unit)' that displays the new, desired > > > > > behavior, and just leave the old method alone? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Richard Yu < > > > yohan.richard...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi all, > > > > >> > > > > >> If possible, would a committer please review? > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks > > > > >> > > > > >> On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 7:24 PM, Richard Yu < > > > yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi Guozhang, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I have clarified the KIP a bit to account for Becket's > suggestion > > on > > > > >> > ClientTimeoutException. > > > > >> > About adding an extra config, you were right about my > intentions. > > I > > > am > > > > >> > just wondering if the config > > > > >> > should be included, since Ismael seems to favor an extra > > > > configuration, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > >> > Richard > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Guozhang Wang < > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi Richard, > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Regarding the streams side changes, we plan to incorporate with > > the > > > > new > > > > >> >> APIs once the KIP is done, which is only internal code changes > > and > > > > >> hence > > > > >> >> do > > > > >> >> not need to include in the KIP. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Could you update the KIP because it has been quite obsoleted > from > > > the > > > > >> >> discussed topics, and I'm a bit loosing track on what is your > > final > > > > >> >> proposal right now. For example, I'm not completely following > > your > > > > >> >> "compromise > > > > >> >> of sorts": are you suggesting that we still add overloading > > > functions > > > > >> and > > > > >> >> add a config that will be applied to all overload functions > > without > > > > the > > > > >> >> timeout, while for other overloaded functions with the timeout > > > value > > > > >> the > > > > >> >> config will be ignored? > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Guozhang > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 8:36 PM, Richard Yu < > > > > >> yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > On a side note, I have noticed that the several other methods > > in > > > > >> classes > > > > >> >> > such as StoreChangeLogReader in Streams calls position() > which > > > > causes > > > > >> >> tests > > > > >> >> > to hang. It might be out of the scope of the KIP, but should > I > > > also > > > > >> >> change > > > > >> >> > the methods which use position() as a callback to at the very > > > least > > > > >> >> prevent > > > > >> >> > the tests from hanging? This issue might be out of the KIP, > > but I > > > > >> >> prefer it > > > > >> >> > if we could at least make my PR pass the Jenkins Q&A. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Richard Yu < > > > > >> yohan.richard...@gmail.com > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks for the review Becket. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > About the methods beginningOffsets(), endOffsets(), ...: > > > > >> >> > > I took a look through the code of KafkaConsumer, but after > > > > looking > > > > >> >> > through > > > > >> >> > > the offsetsByTimes() method > > > > >> >> > > and its callbacks in Fetcher, I think these methods already > > > block > > > > >> for > > > > >> >> a > > > > >> >> > > set period of time. I know that there > > > > >> >> > > is a chance that the offsets methods in KafkaConsumer might > > be > > > > like > > > > >> >> poll > > > > >> >> > > (that is one section of the method > > > > >> >> > > honors the timeout while another -- updateFetchPositions -- > > > does > > > > >> not). > > > > >> >> > > However, I don't think that this is the > > > > >> >> > > case with offsetsByTimes since the callbacks that I checked > > > does > > > > >> not > > > > >> >> seem > > > > >> >> > > to hang. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > The clarity of the exception message is a problem. I > thought > > > your > > > > >> >> > > suggestion there was reasonable. I included > > > > >> >> > > it in the KIP. > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > And on another note, I have noticed that several people has > > > > voiced > > > > >> the > > > > >> >> > > opinion that adding a config might > > > > >> >> > > be advisable in relation to adding an extra parameter. I > > think > > > > >> that we > > > > >> >> > can > > > > >> >> > > have a compromise of sorts: some > > > > >> >> > > methods in KafkaConsumer are relatively similar -- for > > example, > > > > >> >> > position() > > > > >> >> > > and committed() both call > > > > >> >> > > updateFetchPositions(). I think that we could use the same > > > config > > > > >> for > > > > >> >> > > these method as a default timeout if > > > > >> >> > > the user does not provide one. On the other hand, if they > > wish > > > to > > > > >> >> specify > > > > >> >> > > a longer or shorter blocking time, > > > > >> >> > > they have the option of changing the timeout. (I included > the > > > > >> config > > > > >> >> as > > > > >> >> > an > > > > >> >> > > alternative in the KIP) WDYT? > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks, > > > > >> >> > > Richard > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 1:26 AM, Becket Qin < > > > > becket....@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> Glad to see the KIP, Richard. This has been a really long > > > > pending > > > > >> >> issue. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> The original arguments from Jay for using config, such as > > > > >> >> max.block.ms, > > > > >> >> > >> instead of using timeout parameters was that people will > > > always > > > > >> hard > > > > >> >> > code > > > > >> >> > >> the timeout, and the hard coded timeout is rarely correct > > > > because > > > > >> it > > > > >> >> has > > > > >> >> > >> to > > > > >> >> > >> consider different scenarios. For example, users may > receive > > > > >> timeout > > > > >> >> > >> exception when the group coordinator moves. Having a > > > > configuration > > > > >> >> with > > > > >> >> > >> some reasonable default value will make users' life > easier. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> That said, in practice, it seems more useful to have > timeout > > > > >> >> parameters. > > > > >> >> > >> We > > > > >> >> > >> have seen some library, using the consumers internally, > > needs > > > to > > > > >> >> provide > > > > >> >> > >> an > > > > >> >> > >> external flexible timeout interface. Also, user can easily > > > hard > > > > >> code > > > > >> >> a > > > > >> >> > >> value to get the same as a config based solution. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> The KIP looks good overall. A few comments: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> 1. There are a few other blocking methods that are not > > > included, > > > > >> e.g. > > > > >> >> > >> offsetsForTimes(), beginningOffsets(), endOffsets(). Is > > there > > > > any > > > > >> >> > reason? > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> 2. I am wondering can we take the KIP as a chance to clean > > up > > > > our > > > > >> >> > timeout > > > > >> >> > >> exception(s)? More specifically, instead of reusing > > > > >> TimeoutException, > > > > >> >> > can > > > > >> >> > >> we introduce a new ClientTimeoutException with different > > > causes, > > > > >> e.g. > > > > >> >> > >> UnknownTopicOrPartition, RequestTimeout, > LeaderNotAvailable, > > > > etc. > > > > >> >> > >> As of now, the TimeoutException is used in the following > > three > > > > >> cases: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> 1. TimeoutException is a subclass of ApiException which > > > > >> indicates > > > > >> >> the > > > > >> >> > >> exception was returned by the broker. The > > TimeoutException > > > > was > > > > >> >> > >> initially > > > > >> >> > >> returned by the leaders when replication was not done > > > within > > > > >> the > > > > >> >> > >> specified > > > > >> >> > >> timeout in the ProduceRequest. It has an error code of > 7, > > > > >> which is > > > > >> >> > >> returned > > > > >> >> > >> by the broker. > > > > >> >> > >> 2. When we migrate to Java clients, in Errors > definition, > > > we > > > > >> >> extended > > > > >> >> > >> it > > > > >> >> > >> to indicate request timeout, i.e. a request was sent > but > > > the > > > > >> >> response > > > > >> >> > >> was > > > > >> >> > >> not received before timeout. In this case, the clients > > did > > > > not > > > > >> >> have a > > > > >> >> > >> return code from the broker. > > > > >> >> > >> 3. Later at some point, we started to use the > > > > TimeoutException > > > > >> for > > > > >> >> > >> clients method call timeout. It is neither related to > any > > > > >> broker > > > > >> >> > >> returned > > > > >> >> > >> error code, nor to request timeout on the wire. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> Due to the various interpretations, users can easily be > > > > confused. > > > > >> As > > > > >> >> an > > > > >> >> > >> example, when a timeout is thrown with "Failed to refresh > > > > metadata > > > > >> >> in X > > > > >> >> > >> ms", it is hard to tell what exactly happened. Since we > are > > > > >> changing > > > > >> >> the > > > > >> >> > >> API here, it would be good to avoid introducing more > > ambiguity > > > > and > > > > >> >> see > > > > >> >> > >> whether this can be improved. It would be at least one > step > > > > >> forward > > > > >> >> to > > > > >> >> > >> remove the usage of case 3. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> Thanks, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Guozhang Wang < > > > > >> wangg...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > @Richard: TimeoutException inherits from > > RetriableException > > > > >> which > > > > >> >> > >> inherits > > > > >> >> > >> > from ApiException. So users should explicitly try to > > capture > > > > >> >> > >> > RetriableException in their code and handle the > exception. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > @Isamel, Ewen: I'm trying to push progress forward on > this > > > > one, > > > > >> >> are we > > > > >> >> > >> now > > > > >> >> > >> > on the same page for using function parameters than > > configs? > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > Guozhang > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Ismael Juma < > > > > ism...@juma.me.uk > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > Hi Ewen, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > Yeah, I mentioned KAFKA-2391 where some of this was > > > > discussed. > > > > >> >> Jay > > > > >> >> > was > > > > >> >> > >> > > against having timeouts in the methods at the time. > > > However, > > > > >> as > > > > >> >> > Jason > > > > >> >> > >> > said > > > > >> >> > >> > > offline, we did end up with a timeout parameter in > > `poll`. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > Ismael > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Ewen > Cheslack-Postava < > > > > >> >> > >> > e...@confluent.io> > > > > >> >> > >> > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Regarding the flexibility question, has someone > tried > > to > > > > >> dig up > > > > >> >> > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > discussion of the new consumer APIs when they were > > being > > > > >> >> written? > > > > >> >> > I > > > > >> >> > >> > > vaguely > > > > >> >> > >> > > > recall these exact questions about using APIs vs > > configs > > > > and > > > > >> >> > >> > flexibility > > > > >> >> > >> > > vs > > > > >> >> > >> > > > bloating the API surface area having already been > > > > discussed. > > > > >> >> (Not > > > > >> >> > >> that > > > > >> >> > >> > we > > > > >> >> > >> > > > shouldn't revisit, just that it might also be a > faster > > > way > > > > >> to > > > > >> >> get > > > > >> >> > >> to a > > > > >> >> > >> > > full > > > > >> >> > >> > > > understanding of the options, concerns, and > > tradeoffs). > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > -Ewen > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 7:19 AM, Richard Yu < > > > > >> >> > >> > yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > I do have one question though: in the current KIP, > > > > >> throwing > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > TimeoutException to mark > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > that time limit is exceeded is applied to all new > > > > methods > > > > >> >> > >> introduced > > > > >> >> > >> > in > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > this proposal. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > However, how would users respond when a > > > TimeoutException > > > > >> >> (since > > > > >> >> > >> it is > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > considered > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > a RuntimeException)? > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > Richard > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 6:10 PM, Richard Yu < > > > > >> >> > >> > > yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Hi Ismael, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > You have a great point. Since most of the > methods > > in > > > > >> this > > > > >> >> KIP > > > > >> >> > >> have > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > similar > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > callbacks (position() and committed() both use > > > > >> >> > >> > > fetchCommittedOffsets(), > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > and > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > commitSync() is similar to position(), except > just > > > > >> updating > > > > >> >> > >> > offsets), > > > > >> >> > >> > > > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > amount of time > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > they block should be also about equal. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > However, I think that we need to take into > > account a > > > > >> >> couple of > > > > >> >> > >> > > things. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > For > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > starters, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > if the new methods were all reliant on one > config, > > > > >> there is > > > > >> >> > >> > > likelihood > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > that the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > shortcomings for this approach would be similar > to > > > > what > > > > >> we > > > > >> >> > >> faced if > > > > >> >> > >> > > we > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > let > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > request.timeout.ms control all method timeouts. > > In > > > > >> >> > comparison, > > > > >> >> > >> > > adding > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > overloads > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > does not have this problem. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > If you have further thoughts, please let me > know. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > Richard > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Ismael Juma < > > > > >> >> > ism...@juma.me.uk > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> Hi, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> An option that is not currently covered in the > > KIP > > > is > > > > >> to > > > > >> >> > have a > > > > >> >> > >> > > > separate > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> config max.block.ms, which is similar to the > > > > producer > > > > >> >> config > > > > >> >> > >> with > > > > >> >> > >> > > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> same > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> name. This came up during the KAFKA-2391 > > > discussion. > > > > I > > > > >> >> think > > > > >> >> > >> it's > > > > >> >> > >> > > > clear > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> that we can't rely on request.timeout.ms, so > the > > > > >> >> decision is > > > > >> >> > >> > > between > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> adding > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> overloads or adding a new config. People seemed > > to > > > be > > > > >> >> leaning > > > > >> >> > >> > > towards > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> latter in KAFKA-2391, but Jason makes a good > > point > > > > that > > > > >> >> the > > > > >> >> > >> > > overloads > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > are > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> more flexible. A couple of questions from me: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> 1. Do we need the additional flexibility? > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> 2. If we do, do we need it for every blocking > > > method? > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> Ismael > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Richard Yu < > > > > >> >> > >> > > > yohan.richard...@gmail.com > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > Hi Guozhang, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > I made some clarifications to KIP-266, > namely: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > 1. Stated more specifically that commitSync > > will > > > > >> accept > > > > >> >> > user > > > > >> >> > >> > > input. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > 2. fetchCommittedOffsets(): Made its role in > > > > blocking > > > > >> >> more > > > > >> >> > >> clear > > > > >> >> > >> > > to > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > reader. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > 3. Sketched what would happen when time limit > > is > > > > >> >> exceeded. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > These changes should make the KIP easier to > > > > >> understand. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > Cheers, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > Richard > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Guozhang > Wang > > < > > > > >> >> > >> > > wangg...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > Hi Richard, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > I made a pass over the KIP again, some more > > > > >> >> > clarifications > > > > >> >> > >> / > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > comments: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > 1. seek() call itself is not blocking, only > > the > > > > >> >> following > > > > >> >> > >> > poll() > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > call > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> may > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > be blocking as the actually metadata rq > will > > > > >> happen. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > 2. I saw you did not include > > > > >> Consumer.partitionFor(), > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > Consumer.OffsetAndTimestamp() and > > > > >> >> Consumer.listTopics() > > > > >> >> > in > > > > >> >> > >> > your > > > > >> >> > >> > > > KIP. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > After > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > a second thought, I think this may be a > > better > > > > >> idea to > > > > >> >> > not > > > > >> >> > >> > > tackle > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> them in > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > the same KIP, and probably we should > consider > > > > >> whether > > > > >> >> we > > > > >> >> > >> would > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > change > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > behavior or not in another discussion. So I > > > agree > > > > >> to > > > > >> >> not > > > > >> >> > >> > include > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > them. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > 3. In your wiki you mentioned "Another > change > > > > >> shall be > > > > >> >> > >> made to > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > KafkaConsumer#poll(), due to its call to > > > > >> >> > >> > updateFetchPositions() > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > which > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > blocks indefinitely." This part may a bit > > > obscure > > > > >> to > > > > >> >> most > > > > >> >> > >> > > readers > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> who's > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > not > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > familiar with the KafkaConsumer internals, > > > could > > > > >> you > > > > >> >> > please > > > > >> >> > >> > add > > > > >> >> > >> > > > more > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > elaborations. More specifically, I think > the > > > root > > > > >> >> causes > > > > >> >> > of > > > > >> >> > >> > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > public > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > APIs > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > mentioned are a bit different while the > KIP's > > > > >> >> explanation > > > > >> >> > >> > sounds > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > like > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > they > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > are due to the same reason: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > 3.1 fetchCommittedOffsets(): this internal > > call > > > > >> will > > > > >> >> > block > > > > >> >> > >> > > forever > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > if > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > committed offsets cannot be fetched > > > successfully > > > > >> and > > > > >> >> > affect > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > position() > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > and > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > committed(). We need to break out of its > > > internal > > > > >> >> while > > > > >> >> > >> loop. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > 3.2 position() itself will while loop when > > > > offsets > > > > >> >> cannot > > > > >> >> > >> be > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> retrieved in > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > the underlying async call. We need to break > > out > > > > >> this > > > > >> >> > while > > > > >> >> > >> > loop. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > 3.3 commitSync() passed Long.MAX_VALUE as > the > > > > >> timeout > > > > >> >> > >> value, > > > > >> >> > >> > we > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > should > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > take > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > the user specified timeouts when > applicable. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > Guozhang > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Richard > Yu < > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > Actually, what I said above is > inaccurate. > > In > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > testSeekAndCommitWithBrokerFailures, > > > > >> >> > >> > TestUtils.waitUntilTrue > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> blocks, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > not > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > seek. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > My assumption is that seek did not update > > > > >> >> correctly. I > > > > >> >> > >> will > > > > >> >> > >> > be > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> digging > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > further into this. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Richard > > Yu < > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > One more thing: when looking through > > > tests, I > > > > >> have > > > > >> >> > >> > realized > > > > >> >> > >> > > > that > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > seek() > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > methods can potentially block > > indefinitely. > > > > As > > > > >> you > > > > >> >> > well > > > > >> >> > >> > > know, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> seek() > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > is > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > called when pollOnce() or position() is > > > > active. > > > > >> >> Thus, > > > > >> >> > >> if > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> position() > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > blocks > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > indefinitely, then so would seek(). > > Should > > > > >> >> bounding > > > > >> >> > >> seek() > > > > >> >> > >> > > > also > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > be > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > included > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > in this KIP? > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, Richard > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 1:16 PM, > Richard > > > Yu < > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for the advice, Jason > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> I have modified KIP-266 to include the > > > java > > > > >> doc > > > > >> >> for > > > > >> >> > >> > > > committed() > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> and > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > other > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> blocking methods, and I also > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> mentioned poll() which will also be > > > bounded. > > > > >> Let > > > > >> >> me > > > > >> >> > >> know > > > > >> >> > >> > if > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> there is > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> anything else. :) > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Sincerely, Richard > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 12:00 PM, > Jason > > > > >> >> Gustafson < > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > ja...@confluent.io > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> Hi Richard, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> Thanks for the updates. I'm really > glad > > > you > > > > >> >> picked > > > > >> >> > >> this > > > > >> >> > >> > > up. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > A > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > couple > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> minor > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> comments: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> 1. Can you list the full set of new > > APIs > > > > >> >> explicitly > > > > >> >> > >> in > > > > >> >> > >> > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > KIP? > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> Currently I > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> only see the javadoc for > `position()`. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> 2. We should consider adding > `TimeUnit` > > > to > > > > >> the > > > > >> >> new > > > > >> >> > >> > methods > > > > >> >> > >> > > > to > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> avoid > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > unit > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> confusion. I know it's inconsistent > > with > > > > the > > > > >> >> poll() > > > > >> >> > >> API, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > but I > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > think > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > it > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> was > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> probably a mistake not to include it > > > there, > > > > >> so > > > > >> >> > better > > > > >> >> > >> > not > > > > >> >> > >> > > to > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> double > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > down > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> on > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> that mistake. And note that we do > > already > > > > >> have > > > > >> >> > >> > > `close(long, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > TimeUnit)`. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> Other than that, I think the current > > KIP > > > > >> seems > > > > >> >> > >> > reasonable. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> Jason > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:00 PM, > > Richard > > > > Yu < > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > Note to all: I have included > bounding > > > > >> >> > commitSync() > > > > >> >> > >> and > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > committed() > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > in > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> this > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > KIP. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:05 PM, > > > Richard > > > > >> Yu < > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > Hi all, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > I updated the KIP where > overloading > > > > >> >> position() > > > > >> >> > is > > > > >> >> > >> > now > > > > >> >> > >> > > > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > favored > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > approach. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > Bounding position() using > > > > >> requestTimeoutMs > > > > >> >> has > > > > >> >> > >> been > > > > >> >> > >> > > > listed > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> as > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> rejected. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > Any thoughts? > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:00 PM, > > > > Guozhang > > > > >> >> Wang < > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > wangg...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> I agree that adding the > overloads > > is > > > > >> most > > > > >> >> > >> flexible. > > > > >> >> > >> > > But > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> going > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > for > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> that > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> direction we'd do that for all > the > > > > >> blocking > > > > >> >> > call > > > > >> >> > >> > that > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > I've > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > listed > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> above, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> with this timeout value covering > > the > > > > >> >> > end-to-end > > > > >> >> > >> > > waiting > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> time. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> Guozhang > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 10:02 AM, > > Ted > > > > Yu > > > > >> < > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> yuzhih...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > bq. The most flexible option > is > > to > > > > add > > > > >> >> > >> overloads > > > > >> >> > >> > to > > > > >> >> > >> > > > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > consumer > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > This option is flexible. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > Looking at the tail of > > > SPARK-18057, > > > > >> Spark > > > > >> >> > dev > > > > >> >> > >> > > voiced > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > same > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> choice. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > +1 for adding overload with > > > timeout > > > > >> >> > parameter. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > Cheers > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:42 > PM, > > > > Jason > > > > >> >> > >> Gustafson < > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> ja...@confluent.io> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > @Guozhang I probably have > > > > suggested > > > > >> all > > > > >> >> > >> options > > > > >> >> > >> > > at > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > some > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > point > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > or > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> another, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > including most recently, the > > > > current > > > > >> >> KIP! > > > > >> >> > I > > > > >> >> > >> was > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> thinking > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > that > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> practically > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > speaking, the request > timeout > > > > >> defines > > > > >> >> how > > > > >> >> > >> long > > > > >> >> > >> > > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> user is > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> willing > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > to > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > wait > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > for a response. The consumer > > > > doesn't > > > > >> >> > really > > > > >> >> > >> > have > > > > >> >> > >> > > a > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> complex > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > send > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> process > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > like the producer for any of > > > these > > > > >> >> APIs, > > > > >> >> > so > > > > >> >> > >> I > > > > >> >> > >> > > > wasn't > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> sure > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > how > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> much > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > benefit > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > there would be from having > > more > > > > >> >> granular > > > > >> >> > >> > control > > > > >> >> > >> > > > over > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > timeouts > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> (in > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > end, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > KIP-91 just adds a single > > > timeout > > > > to > > > > >> >> > control > > > > >> >> > >> > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > whole > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > send). > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> That > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> said, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > it > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > might indeed be better to > > avoid > > > > >> >> > overloading > > > > >> >> > >> the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > config > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> as > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > you > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > suggest > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > since > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > at least it avoids > > inconsistency > > > > >> with > > > > >> >> the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > producer's > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > usage. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > The most flexible option is > to > > > add > > > > >> >> > >> overloads to > > > > >> >> > >> > > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > consumer > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > so > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> that > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > users > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > can pass the timeout > directly. > > > I'm > > > > >> not > > > > >> >> > sure > > > > >> >> > >> if > > > > >> >> > >> > > that > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > is > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > more > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > or > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> less > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > annoying than a new config, > > but > > > > I've > > > > >> >> found > > > > >> >> > >> > config > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > timeouts a > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> little > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > constraining in practice. > For > > > > >> example, > > > > >> >> I > > > > >> >> > >> could > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > imagine > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > users > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> wanting > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> to > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > wait longer for an offset > > commit > > > > >> >> operation > > > > >> >> > >> > than a > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> position > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> lookup; > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > if > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > latter isn't timely, users > can > > > > just > > > > >> >> pause > > > > >> >> > >> the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > partition > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > and > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> continue > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > fetching on others. If you > > > cannot > > > > >> >> commit > > > > >> >> > >> > offsets, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> however, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > it > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> might > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > be > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > safer for an application to > > wait > > > > >> >> > >> availability > > > > >> >> > >> > of > > > > >> >> > >> > > > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > coordinator > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > than > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > continuing. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > -Jason > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 10:14 > > PM, > > > > >> >> Guozhang > > > > >> >> > >> Wang > > > > >> >> > >> > < > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> wangg...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > Hello Richard, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > Thanks for the proposed > > KIP. I > > > > >> have a > > > > >> >> > >> couple > > > > >> >> > >> > of > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> general > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> comments: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > 1. I'm not sure if > > > piggy-backing > > > > >> the > > > > >> >> > >> timeout > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> exception > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > on > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > existing requestTimeoutMs > > > > >> configured > > > > >> >> in > > > > >> >> > " > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > request.timeout.ms > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > " > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> is a > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> good > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > idea > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > since a) it is a general > > > config > > > > >> that > > > > >> >> > >> applies > > > > >> >> > >> > > for > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > all > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > types > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > of > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> requests, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > and > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > 2) using it to cover all > the > > > > >> phases > > > > >> >> of > > > > >> >> > an > > > > >> >> > >> API > > > > >> >> > >> > > > call, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > including > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> network > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > round > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > trip and potential > metadata > > > > >> refresh > > > > >> >> is > > > > >> >> > >> shown > > > > >> >> > >> > to > > > > >> >> > >> > > > not > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> be a > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > good > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > idea, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> as > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > illustrated in KIP-91: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confl > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> uence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > 91+Provide+Intuitive+User+ > > > > >> >> > >> > > > Timeouts+in+The+Producer > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > In fact, I think in > > KAFKA-4879 > > > > >> which > > > > >> >> is > > > > >> >> > >> aimed > > > > >> >> > >> > > for > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > same > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> issue > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > as > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > KAFKA-6608, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > Jason has suggested we > use a > > > new > > > > >> >> config > > > > >> >> > >> for > > > > >> >> > >> > the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > API. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > Maybe > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> this > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> would > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > be > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > a > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > more intuitive manner than > > > > reusing > > > > >> >> the > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > request.timeout.ms > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> config. > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > 2. Besides the > > > > Consumer.position() > > > > >> >> call, > > > > >> >> > >> > there > > > > >> >> > >> > > > are > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > a > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > couple > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > of > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > more > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > blocking calls today that > > > could > > > > >> >> result > > > > >> >> > in > > > > >> >> > >> > > > infinite > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > blocking: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > Consumer.commitSync() and > > > > >> >> > >> > Consumer.committed(), > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> should > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > they > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > be > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > considered > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > in this KIP as well? > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > 3. There are a few other > > APIs > > > > that > > > > >> >> are > > > > >> >> > >> today > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > relying > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> on > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > request.timeout.ms > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > already for breaking the > > > > infinite > > > > >> >> > >> blocking, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > namely > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > Consumer.partitionFor(), > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > Consumer.OffsetAndTimestamp() > > > > and > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> Consumer.listTopics(), > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > if > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> we are > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > making > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > the other blocking calls > to > > be > > > > >> >> relying a > > > > >> >> > >> new > > > > >> >> > >> > > > config > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> as > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> suggested > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > in > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> 1) > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > above, should we also > change > > > the > > > > >> >> > >> semantics of > > > > >> >> > >> > > > these > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> API > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> functions > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> for > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > consistency? > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > Guozhang > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at > 11:13 > > > AM, > > > > >> >> Richard > > > > >> >> > >> Yu < > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > Hi all, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > I would like to discuss > a > > > > >> potential > > > > >> >> > >> change > > > > >> >> > >> > > > which > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> would > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > be > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> made > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > to > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > KafkaConsumer: > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/ > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > confluence/pages/viewpage > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> . > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > action?pageId=75974886 > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > Richard Yu > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > -- > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > -- Guozhang > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> -- > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> -- Guozhang > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > -- Guozhang > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > -- > > > > >> >> > >> > -- Guozhang > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> -- > > > > >> >> -- Guozhang > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
