The reason that I'm hesitant to use the term "timeout" is that it's being over-used for multiple semantics: request RPC timeout, consumer session heartbeat liveness "timeout", and API blocking timeout. We can argue that in English both of them are indeed called a "timeout" value, but personally I'm afraid for normal users having the same word `timeout` would be confusing, and hence I'm proposing for using a slight different term.
Comparing with adding a new config, I'm actually more concerned about leveraging the request.timeout value for a default blocking timeout, since the default value is hard to decide, since for different blocking calls, it may have different rpc round trips behind the scene, so simply setting it as request.timeout + a delta may not be always good enough. Guozhang On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > I see where the 0.5 in your previous response came about. > > The reason I wrote 'request.timeout.ms + 15000' was that I treat this > value > in place of the default.block.ms > According to your earlier description: > > bq. request.timeout.ms controls something different: the amount of time > we're willing to wait for an RPC to complete. > > Basically we're in agreement. It is just that figuring out good default is > non-trivial. > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, at 16:35, Ted Yu wrote: > > > bq. could probably come up with a good default > > > > > > That's the difficult part. > > > > > > bq. max(1000, 0.5 * request.timeout.ms) > > > > > > Looking at some existing samples: > > > In tests/kafkatest/tests/connect/templates/connect-distributed. > properties > > , > > > we have: > > > request.timeout.ms=30000 > > > > > > Isn't the above formula putting an upper bound 15000 for the RPC > timeout > > ? > > > > Correct. It would put a 15 second default on the RPC timeout in this > > case. If that's too short, the user has the option to change it. > > > > If we feel that 15 seconds is too short, we could put a floor of 30 > > seconds or whatever on the RPC timeout, instead of 1 second. > > > > > > > > By fixed duration, I meant something like > > > request.timeout.ms + 15000 > > > > The RPC timeout should be shorter than the request timeout, so that we > get > > multiple tries if the RPC hangs due to network issues. It should not be > > longer. > > > > best, > > Colin > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > I don't think it can be fixed. The RPC duration is something that > you > > > > might reasonably want to tune. For example, if it's too low, you > > might not > > > > be able to make progress at all on a heavily loaded server. > > > > > > > > We could probably come up with a good default, however. > > rpc.timeout.ms > > > > could be set to something like > > > > max(1000, 0.5 * request.timeout.ms) > > > > > > > > best, > > > > Colin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, at 16:21, Ted Yu wrote: > > > > > bq. we must make the API timeout longer than the RPC timeout > > > > > > > > > > I agree with the above. > > > > > > > > > > How about adding a fixed duration on top of request.timeout.ms ? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > As Jason noted earlier, request.timeout.ms controls something > > > > different: > > > > > > the amount of time we're willing to wait for an RPC to complete. > > > > > > > > > > > > Empirically, RPCs sometimes hang for a long time. If the API > > timeout > > > > is > > > > > > the same as the RPC timeout, we are not robust against this > failure > > > > > > condition. The whole call fails rather than trying another > server > > or > > > > a new > > > > > > socket. > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to fix this, we must make the API timeout longer than > the > > RPC > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we have a lot of users who have been trained to use > > > > > > request.timeout.ms to make their clients time out earlier. If > we > > > > > > introduce a new config to do this instead, it's kind of a > breaking > > > > change > > > > > > for them. Perhaps we should go the other direction and create a > > new > > > > > > configuration like rpc.timeout.ms to do what request.timeout.ms > is > > > > doing > > > > > > now. Then request.timeout.ms can become what users already > think > > it > > > > is: > > > > > > the timeout for their API calls. > > > > > > > > > > > > best, > > > > > > Colin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, at 15:29, Ted Yu wrote: > > > > > > > bq. we were already doing with request.timeout.ms > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would vote for using existing config. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any new config parameter needs to go thru long process of > > digestion: > > > > > > > documentation, etc in order for users to understand and > > familiarize. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The existing config would have lower mismatch of impedance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Jason Gustafson < > > ja...@confluent.io> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure I understand why we > want > > to > > > > > > avoid the > > > > > > > > term "timeout." Semantically, that's what it is. If we don't > > want > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > timeout config, we could avoid it and hard-code a reasonable > > > > default > > > > > > or try > > > > > > > > to wrap the behavior into one of the other timeouts (which is > > sort > > > > of > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > we were already doing with request.timeout.ms). But I'm not > > too > > > > sure > > > > > > > > calling it something else addresses the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dhruvil Shah < > > dhru...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that using `default.timeout.ms` could cause > > confusion > > > > since > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > already have other timeout configurations in the consumer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for using `default.block.ms`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > Dhruvil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Bill Bejeck < > > bbej...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At first, I thought the same name between the producer > and > > the > > > > > > consumer > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > > > > > > ideal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But your comment makes me realize consistent names with > > > > different > > > > > > > > > semantics > > > > > > > > > > is even more confusing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm +1 for not using `max.block.ms`. I like Guozhang's > > > > > > suggestion of > > > > > > > > ` > > > > > > > > > > default.block.ms` for the name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Guozhang Wang < > > > > wangg...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah I agree that "max.block.ms" makes people thinking > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > > > producer's > > > > > > > > > > > config with the same name, but their semantics are > > different. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, I'm a bit concerned with the reusing > > of > > > > the > > > > > > term > > > > > > > > > > > `timeout` as we already have `session.timeout.ms` and > ` > > > > > > > > > > request.timeout.ms` > > > > > > > > > > > in ConsumerConfig.. How about using the name ` > > > > > > default.api.block.ms` > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > simply `default.block.ms`? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Jason Gustafson < > > > > > > ja...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One more minor follow-up. As I was reviewing the > change > > > > > > mentioned > > > > > > > > > > above, > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > felt the name `max.block.ms` was a little bit > > misleading > > > > > > since it > > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > > > applies to methods which do not have an explicit > > timeout. A > > > > > > clearer > > > > > > > > > > name > > > > > > > > > > > > given its usage might be `default.timeout.ms`. It is > > the > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > > > timeout > > > > > > > > > > > > for any blocking API which does not have a timeout. > I'm > > > > leaning > > > > > > > > > toward > > > > > > > > > > > > using this name since the current one seems likely to > > cause > > > > > > > > > confusion. > > > > > > > > > > > Any > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Dong Lin < > > > > lindon...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! I am in favor of the option 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Jason Gustafson < > > > > > > > > > ja...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks everyone for the feedback. I've updated > the > > KIP > > > > and > > > > > > > > added > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KAFKA-6979. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Guozhang Wang < > > > > > > > > > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Jason. I'm in favor of option 1 as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Bill Bejeck < > > > > > > > > > bbej...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For what it's worth I'm +1 on Option 1 and > the > > > > default > > > > > > > > value > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to reasons outlined above by > > Jason, I > > > > > > think it > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > help > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason about consumer behavior (with respect > to > > > > > > blocking) > > > > > > > > > > having > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration and default value aligned with > > the > > > > > > producer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Ismael Juma > < > > > > > > > > > > ism...@juma.me.uk> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:40 PM Jason > > Gustafson > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > ja...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps one minute? That is the default > > used > > > > by the > > > > > > > > > > producer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Ismael > > Juma < > > > > > > > > > > > > ism...@juma.me.uk> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Option 1 sounds good to me provided > that > > we > > > > can > > > > > > come > > > > > > > > up > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default. What would you suggest? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:41 AM Jason > > > > Gustafson < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ja...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There remains some inconsistency in > the > > > > timeout > > > > > > > > > > behavior > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consumer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > APIs which do not accept a timeout. > > Some of > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > block > > > > > > > > > > > > > forever > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position()) and some of them use > > > > > > > > request.timeout.ms > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > parititonsFor()). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we'd probably all agree that > > > > blocking > > > > > > > > forever > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior and using > request.timeout.ms > > has > > > > > > always > > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > hack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > controls a separate concern. I think > > there > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > basically > > > > > > > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > address this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We can add max.block.ms to match > > the > > > > > > producer > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > timeout when a timeout is not > > explicitly > > > > > > provided. > > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indefinite blocking behavior and > avoid > > > > > > conflating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > request.timeout.ms > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We can deprecate the methods which > > don't > > > > > > accept > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm leaning toward the first solution > > > > because I > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > push > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to specifying timeouts through > > > > configuration > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Jay's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > original argument). I think the > > overloads > > > > are > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advanced > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage (e.g. in kafka streams), but we > > > > should > > > > > > give > > > > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > option > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable default behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that sounds ok, I'd propose we add > > it to > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > KIP > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > fix > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gives users an easy way to get the > > benefit > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP without changing any code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 7:58 PM, > > Richard > > > > Yu < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With 3 binding votes and 6 > > non-binding, > > > > this > > > > > > KIP > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > accepted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for participating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 2:35 AM, > > Edoardo > > > > > > Comar < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edoco...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 May 2018 at 10:29, zhenya > > Sun < > > > > > > > > > > toke...@126.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 non-binding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 在 > 2018年5月10日，下午5:19，Manikumar < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > manikumar.re...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 2:33 > > PM, > > > > > > Mickael > > > > > > > > > > Maison < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 (non binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:39 > > AM, > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > Sivaram > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hi Richard, Thanks for the > > KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Rajini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at > 10:54 > > PM, > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > Wang > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1 from me, thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at > > 10:46 AM, > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > Gustafson < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ja...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the KIP, +1 > > > > (binding). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> One small correction: the > > KIP > > > > > > mentions > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > close() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> deprecated, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> we do not want to do this > > > > because > > > > > > it is > > > > > > > > > > > needed > > > > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Closeable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> interface. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> We only want to deprecate > > > > > > close(long, > > > > > > > > > > > TimeUnit) > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > favor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> close(Duration). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> -Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at > > 12:43 > > > > AM, > > > > > > > > > > khaireddine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rezgui < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> khaireddine...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2018-05-07 20:35 > GMT+01:00 > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > Bejeck < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bbej...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at > > 7:21 > > > > PM, > > > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > Yu > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > yohan.richard...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi all, I would like > to > > bump > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> KIP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> appears to be reaching > > its > > > > > > > > conclusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 > at > > > > 3:30 PM, > > > > > > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > > > > Yu > > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Since there does not > > seem > > > > to > > > > > > be too > > > > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> KIP-266, I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> starting a voting > > thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Here is the link to > > > > KIP-266 for > > > > > > > > > > > reference: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confluence/pages/viewpage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> action?pageId=75974886 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Recently, I have made > > some > > > > > > updates > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reiterate, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> included > > KafkaConsumer's > > > > > > > > commitSync, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> poll, and committed > in > > the > > > > > > KIP. (we > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> TimeoutException > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to them as well, in a > > > > similar > > > > > > > > manner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to what we will be > > doing > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > position()) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Richard Yu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Ingénieur en > informatique > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When the people fear their > > government, > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > tyranny; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > government fears the people, > there > > is > > > > > > liberty." > > > > > > > > > > > [Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jefferson] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- -- Guozhang
