Looks like the KIP is passed with 3 binding votes. From Matthias, Bill Bejeck and myself you got 3 binding votes. You can do the full tally of the votes and send out a close of vote thread.
Thanks, Harsha On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, at 12:24 PM, M. Manna wrote: > Hello, > > Trying to revive this thread again. Would anyone be interested in having > this KiP through > > > Thanks, > > On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 16:44, M. Manna <manme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I am trying to revive this thread. I only got 1 binding vote so far. > > > > Please feel free to revisit and comment here. > > > > Thanks, > > > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 00:15, M. Manna <manme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hey IJ, > >> > >> Thanks for your interest in the KIP. > >> > >> My point was simply that the round-robin should happen even if the key is > >> not null. As for the importance of key in our case, we treat the key as > >> metadata. Each key is composed of certain info which are parsed by our > >> consumer thread. We will then determine whether it's an actionable message > >> (e.g. process it), or a loopback(ignore it). You could argue, "Why not > >> append this metadata with the record and parse it there?". But that means > >> the following: > >> > >> 1) I'm always passing null key to achieve this - I would like to pass > >> Null/Not-Null/Other key i.e. flexibility > >> 2) Suppose the message size is 99 KB and and max message bytes allowed is > >> 100K. Now prefixing metadata with message results into the actual message > >> being 101K. This will fail at producer level and cause a retry/log this in > >> our DB for future pickup. > >> > >> To avoid all these, we are simply proposing this new partitioner class. > >> but all Kafka new releases will still have DefaultPartitioner as default, > >> unless they change the prop file to use our new class. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 at 04:05, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks for the KIP. Can you please elaborate on the need for the key in > >>> this case? The KIP simply states that the key is needed for metadata, but > >>> doesn't give any more details. > >>> > >>> Ismael > >>> > >>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:39 AM M. Manna <manme...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Hello, > >>> > > >>> > I have made necessary changes as per the original discussion thread, > >>> and > >>> > would like to put it for votes. > >>> > > >>> > Thank you very much for your suggestion and guidance so far. > >>> > > >>> > Regards, > >>> > > >>> > >> >
