Yes I’m more than happy to change it to a more appropriate name. The issue with RoundRobinPatitoner is that the DefaultPartitioner already has a Round-Robin associated to it. But if community doesn’t mind the name, I don’t either.
Thanks for reading the KIP btw. Regards, On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 at 05:47, Magesh Nandakumar <mage...@confluent.io> wrote: > +1 for this. The only small suggestion would be to possibly call this > RondRobinPartitioner which makes the intent obvious. > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:31 PM Stephen Powis <spo...@salesforce.com> > wrote: > > > Neat, this would be super helpful! I submitted this ages ago: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3333 > > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Satish Duggana < > satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > +including both dev and user mailing lists. > > > > > > Hi, > > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > > > > "* For us, the message keys represent some metadata which we use to > > either > > > ignore messages (if a loop-back to the sender), or log some > > information.*" > > > > > > Above statement was mentioned in the KIP about how key value is used. I > > > guess the topic is not configured to be compacted and you do not want > to > > > have partitioning based on that key. IMHO, it qualifies more as a > header > > > than a key. What do you think about building records with a specific > > header > > > and consumers to execute the logic whether to process or ignore the > > > messages based on that header value. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Satish. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 1:32 AM, Satish Duggana < > > satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks for the KIP. > > > > > > > > "* For us, the message keys represent some metadata which we use to > > > > either ignore messages (if a loop-back to the sender), or log some > > > > information.*" > > > > > > > > Above statement was mentioned in the KIP about how key value is > used. I > > > > guess the topic is not configured to be compacted and you do not want > > to > > > > have partitioning based on that key. IMHO, it qualifies more as a > > header > > > > than a key. What do you think about building records with a specific > > > header > > > > and consumers to execute the logic whether to process or ignore the > > > > messages based on that header value. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Satish. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 12:02 AM, M. Manna <manme...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Harsha, > > > >> > > > >> thanks for reading the KIP. > > > >> > > > >> The intent is to use the DefaultPartitioner logic for round-robin > > > >> selection > > > >> of partition regardless of key type. > > > >> > > > >> Implementing Partitioner interface isn’t the issue here, you would > > have > > > to > > > >> do that anyway if you are implementing your own. But we also want > > this > > > to > > > >> be part of formal codebase. > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 16:58, Harsha <ka...@harsha.io> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi, > > > >> > Thanks for the KIP. I am trying to understand the intent of > > the > > > >> > KIP. Is the use case you specified can't be achieved by > > implementing > > > >> the > > > >> > Partitioner interface here? > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/clients/src/main/ > > > >> java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/Partitioner.java#L28 > > > >> > . > > > >> > Use your custom partitioner to be configured in your producer > > clients. > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > >> > Harsha > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018, at 1:45 AM, M. Manna wrote: > > > >> > > Hello, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I opened a very simple KIP and there exists a JIRA for it. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I would be grateful if any comments are available for action. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Regards, > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
