Thanks Colin and Mathias.
> On Jan 12, 2019, at 8:27 PM, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> Thus, I would suggest to limit this KIP to the consumer only, otherwise,
> the scope will be too large and this KIP will drag on even longer. If we
> really want to add this to Kafka Streams, I expect a long and difficult
> discussion about this by itself, and thus, doing this in a follow up KIP
> (if there is any demand) seems to be the better approach.
>
Agreed, and my intent is to limit the scope to the consumer.
> About the starvation issue: maybe it's a bold claim, but is a potential
> starvation of a low-priority topic not intended by design if topics have
On reflection, it would be hard to describe the semantics of an API that tried
to address starvation by temporarily disabling prioritization, and then
oscillating back and forth.
Thus I agree that it makes sense not to try and address starvation to Mathias’
point that this is intended by design. The KIP has been updated to reflect
this by removing the second method.
Regarding incremental fetch, Colin do you have any suggestion on which option
to adopt or how to proceed ?
--
Nick
