Hi Boyang, The KIP looks very good. One small question I have is now that we have one and a half round-trips needed to join in a rebalance (1 full RT addition), is it worth it to consider increasing the default value of `group.initial.rebalance.delay.ms`?
Best, Stanislav On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:39 PM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi Boyang, > > Thanks for the KIP. Looks good overall. I think we will need to bump the > version of the JoinGroup protocol in order to indicate compatibility with > the new behavior. The coordinator needs to know when it is safe to assume > the client will handle the error code. > > Also, I was wondering if we could reuse the REBALANCE_IN_PROGRESS error > code. When the client sees this error code, it will take the memberId from > the response and rejoin. We'd still need the protocol bump since older > consumers do not have this logic. > > Thanks, > Jason > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:47 PM Boyang Chen <bche...@outlook.com> wrote: > > > Hey friends, > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion thread for KIP-394 which is trying to > > mitigate broker cache bursting issue due to anonymous join group > requests: > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-394%3A+Require+member.id+for+initial+join+group+request > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Boyang > > > -- Best, Stanislav
