"I agree, but that is *not what #3155 tries to achieve." This typo made this phrase nonsense, sorry!
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019, 16:44 Ezequiel Lovelle <ezequiellove...@gmail.com wrote: > > What exactly is the delayed delivery use case? > > This is helpful on systems relaying on pulsar for persistent guarantees > and using it for synchronization or some sort of checks, but on such > systems is common to have some overhead committing data on persistent > storage maybe due to buffered mechanism or distributing the data across > the network before being available. > > Surely would be more use cases I don't came across right now. > > > Random insertion and deletion is not what FIFO queues like Pulsar are > designed for. > > I agree, but that is now what #3155 tries to achieve. #3155 is just a > fixed delay for all message in a consumer, that's the reason that the > implementation of #3155 is quite trivial. > > +1 from me for doing PIP-26 in functions. > > -- > *Ezequiel Lovelle* > > > On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 09:57, Yuva raj <uvar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Considering the way pulsar is built +1 for doing PIP-26 in functions. I am >> more of thinking in a way like publish it pulsar we will make it available >> in a different queuing system if you need priority and delay messages >> support. Pulsar functions would go enough for this kind of use cases. >> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 22:29, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > > Correct. PIP-26 can be implemented in Functions. I believe the last >> > > discussion in PIP-26 thread kind of agree on functions approach. >> > > If the community is okay with PIP-26 in functions, I think that is >> > probably >> > > a good approach to start. >> > >> > +1 for doing it in functions. >> > >> > -Ivan >> > >> >> >> -- >> *Thanks* >> >> *Yuvaraj L* >> >
