Hey All, I wanted to get to some closure on this issue before the release. I think the config `default.api.timeout.ms` sounds good to me. Guozhang and I had actually discussed using this name before we saw Colin's comment.
As for the default value, the main reason that the current ` request.timeout.ms` is so high for the consumer is that we have to handle the special case of the JoinGroup, which can currently sit in purgatory for as long as `max.poll.interval.ms`. I'd like to propose making that a special case so that the default value can be changed to something more reasonable. In other words, the timeout for JoinGroup will be tied to ` max.poll.interval.ms` direction and we will use `request.timeout.ms` for everything else. For the default values, I would suggest 30s for ` request.timeout.ms` and 60s for `default.api.timeout.ms`. How does that sound? Thanks, Jason On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, at 13:10, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > 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. > > Hmm. I can see why you want to have a different-sounding name from the > existing timeouts. However, I think it could be less clear to omit the > word timeout. If your operation times out, and you get a TimeoutException, > what configuration do you raise? The timeout. If the configuration name > doesn't tell you that it's a timeout, it's harder to understand what needs > to be changed. > > For example, if "group.min.session.timeout.ms" was called something like " > group.min.session.block.ms" or "group.min.session.heartbeat.ms", it would > not be as clear. > > > 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. > > Yes, I agree that we need a new configuration key. I don't think we > should try to hard-code this. > > I think we should just bite the bullet and create a new configuration key > like "default.api.timeout.ms" that sets the default timeout for API > calls. The hard part is adding the new configuration in a way that doesn't > disrupt existing configurations. > > There are at least a few cases to worry about: > > 1. Someone uses the default (pretty long) timeouts for everything. > 2. Someone has configured a short request.timeout.ms, in an effort to see > failures more quickly > 3. Someone has configured a very long (or maybe infinite) > request.timeout.ms > > Case #2 is probably the one which is hardest to support well. We could > probably do it with logic like this: > > A. If default.api.timeout.ms is explicitly set, we use that value. > otherwise... > B. If request.timeout.ms is longer than 2 minutes, we set > default.api.timeout.ms to request.timeout.ms + 1500. otherwise... > we set default.api.timeout.ms to request.timeout.ms > > best, > Colin > > > > > > > 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 >
