Thanks, Vahid. best, Colin
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018, at 12:15, Vahid S Hashemian wrote: > The KIP has been updated. > > If it looks good and there are no further comments I'll start a vote early > next week. > > Thanks. > --Vahid > > > > > From: "Vahid S Hashemian" <vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > Date: 08/03/2018 08:19 AM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the default group id > behavior in KafkaConsumer > > > > Hi Jason, Stanislav, > > Thanks for your feedback. I'll update the KIP later today based on your > suggestion. > I'll send a note once the update is complete. > > Thanks. > --Vahid > > > > From: Stanislav Kozlovski <stanis...@confluent.io> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > Date: 08/03/2018 02:34 AM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-289: Improve the default group id > behavior in KafkaConsumer > > > > Hi, > > I also believe the minimal change might be better. In my opinion, the less > logic we can stuff in the broker - the better. The use ofempty group.id is > not ideal and should be discouraged, but I don't inherently believe strict > validation in the broker is useful, since it doesn't break anything > internal (except maybe not being able to set ACLs). > Having sufficient warnings or even restriction on the clients I feel might > be a good enough compromise. > > That being said, I very much look forward to voting for this KIP. > > Thanks, > Stanislav > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:51 AM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Hey Vahid, > > > > I think we're in agreement. Perhaps since none of us feel too strongly, > we > > should go for the more minimal change? I'll vote for the KIP either way > as > > long as we can change the default group.id. > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > > > >
