Ah, good point. Should we consider altering the serializer interface to permit not sending the record?
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 9:23 PM Kamal Chandraprakash < kamal.chandraprak...@gmail.com> wrote: > Matt, > > That's a good point. If these cases are handled in the serializer, then > one cannot continue the stream processing by skipping the record. > To continue, you may have to send a empty record serialized key/value (new > byte[0]) to the downstream on hitting the error which may cause un-intended > results. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 8:41 PM Matt Farmer <m...@frmr.me> wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > Thanks for this KIP. > > > > What’s the thinking behind doing this in ProductionExceptionHandler > versus > > handling these cases in your serializer implementation? > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 1:09 AM Kamal Chandraprakash < > > kamal.chandraprak...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hello dev, > > > > > > I hope to initiate the discussion for KIP-399: Extend > > > ProductionExceptionHandler to cover serialization exceptions. > > > > > > KIP: < > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-399%3A+Extend+ProductionExceptionHandler+to+cover+serialization+exceptions > > > > > > > JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7499 > > > > > > All feedbacks will be highly appreciated. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Kamal Chandraprakash > > > > > >
