Thanks, LGTM. Penghui
On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 4:32 PM Lin Lin <lin...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 2021/09/24 14:09:14, PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > Sorry for the late reply, > > > > If a batch has 10 messages, but users only want to filter out parts of > them > > such as 3 messages, only 7 messages should be processed at the consumer > > side. > > So if the proposal is for the entry filter, I think we should have the > > EntryFitler interface, not MessageFilter? > > > > Actually, I also have some doubts about the entry filter, not sure if it > > can be used in the real world. Or we should disable the batch when using > > the filter or deserialize > > the single message metadata to decide if the consumer should skip this > > message, looks both of them will bring greater overhead to the broker. > > > > But I am not against the pluggable filter, not all users consider the > > performance first, If they are more think about it at a functional > > perspective, the pluggable filter will help them. > > We should clarify it in the proposal, let users know how to make > trade-offs. > > > > Thanks, > > Penghui > > > > > Hello penghui, > I agree with your concerns. At this stage, we can only do Entry-level > filtering. If the Message in the Entry is forced to be filtered on the > Broker side, there will be problems in the subsequent consumer ack. > Therefore, if we want to use this filter, we must set > enableBatching=false, which is the same as delayed messages. > > I will explain this point in the comments of the interface > > Thanks, > Lin Lin >
