> However, in this proposal, `TopicMessageId#toByteArray` won't. See the implementation of `TopicMessageId#create`. It's only a wrapper for an arbitrary MessageId implementation.
That makes sense to me. +1 Thanks, Zike Yang On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 9:35 AM Baodi Shi <baodi....@icloud.com.invalid> wrote: > > Make sense. +1 > > > > 2022年11月29日 22:50，Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.INVALID> 写道： > > > > Hi Baodi, > > > >> `negativeAcknowledge` also needs to add the same checks as the new > >> acknowledge interface > > > > Good suggestion. I will add it. > > > >> This can users to clearly associate the use cases of MultiTopicConsumer > >> and TopicMessageId. > > > > IMO. Users should not care about the MultiTopicsConsumer and > > TopicMessageId when using `receive` and `acknowledge` APIs. We only > > need to guarantee the following code works. > > > > ```java > > var msg = consumer.receive(); > > consumer.acknowledge(msg.getMessageId()); > > ``` > > > > Currently, `acknowledge` works well but there is no standard to handle > > the exceptional case, e.g. a multi-topics consumer tries to > > acknowledge a message id from a single-topic consumer. This proposal > > makes the behavior clear that > > PulsarClientException.NotAllowedException will be thrown in this case. > > In addition, for these users, they can use `TopicMessageId#create` > > after this proposal. > > > > ```java > > var msg = singleTopicConsumer.receive(); > > multiTopicsConsumer.acknowledge(TopicMessageId.create(msg.getMessageId())); > > ``` > > > > However, this solution is just for experienced Pulsar developers. They > > don't need to use `TopicMessageIdImpl` anymore. But for normal users, > > adding overloads could make it more complicated. They have to know > > what the TopicMessageId is when using the `acknowledge` methods. > > > > Thanks, > > Yunze > > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:12 PM Baodi Shi <baodi....@icloud.com.invalid> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, Yunze: > >> > >> Thanks for your proposal. That Looks good to me. > >> > >> `negativeAcknowledge` also needs to add the same checks as the new > >> acknowledge interface. > >> > >>> This interface doesn't add any acknowledge overload because the overloads > >>> are already too many. But it will make the behavior clear. > >> I think since we exposed the TopicMessageId, it would be better to add > >> overloaded interfaces (even if the overloads are a lot). This can users to > >> clearly associate the use cases of MultiTopicConsumer and TopicMessageId. > >> > >> Also, while it's okay to use TopicMessageId param on a single consumer, I > >> guess we shouldn't allow users to use it. > >> > >> In this way, users are clearly aware that TopicMessageId is used when > >> using MultiTopicConsumer and MessageId is used when using > >> SingleTopicConsumer.(Maybe it's not a good idea) > >> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Baodi Shi > >> > >>> 2022年11月29日 15:57，Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.INVALID> 写道： > >>> > >>>> Is there a case where the user uses the messageId returned by the > >>> producer to seek in the consumer? Is this a good behavior? > >>> > >>> Yes. I think it should be acceptable. To correct my previous point, > >>> now I think the MessageId returned by send should also be able to be > >>> applied for seek or acknowledge. > >>> > >>>> even with the > >>> current proposal, it may return null when getting the topic from > >>> TopicMessageId for backward compatibility. > >>> > >>> No. It may return null just because Java doesn't allow a non-null > >>> returned value. The internal implementations of > >>> TopicMessageId#getOwerTopic should return a non-null topic name to > >>> avoid null check. > >>> > >>> When I mentioned **the implementation of getTopicName() must return > >>> null**, the assumption is that MessageId#toByteArray serializes the > >>> topic name if adding the `getTopicName()` method. However, in this > >>> proposal, `TopicMessageId#toByteArray` won't. See the implementation > >>> of `TopicMessageId#create`. It's only a wrapper for an arbitrary > >>> MessageId implementation. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Yunze > >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 2:47 PM Zike Yang <z...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Yunze, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for your proposal. Quoted from your GitHub comments[0]: > >>>> > >>>>> There is also a case when MessageId is returned from Producer#send. In > >>>>> this case, the returned MessageId should only used for serialization > >>>> > >>>> Is there a case where the user uses the messageId returned by the > >>>> producer to seek in the consumer? Is this a good behavior? > >>>> > >>>>> If we added the method directly to MessageId, to keep the backward > >>>>> compatibility, the implementation of getTopicName() must return null, > >>>>> which is not a good design. > >>>> > >>>> I think it's a trade-off. If I understand correctly, even with the > >>>> current proposal, it may return null when getting the topic from > >>>> TopicMessageId for backward compatibility. The current > >>>> TopicMessageIdImpl doesn't serialize the topic information. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18616#issuecomment-1328609346 > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Zike Yang > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 12:22 PM Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> I've opened a PIP to discuss: > >>>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18616. > >>>>> > >>>>> The consumer's MessageId related APIs have some hidden requirements > >>>>> and flakiness and some behaviors are not documented well. This > >>>>> proposal will introduce a TopicMessageId interface that exposes a > >>>>> method to get a message's owner topic. > >>>>> > >>>>> P.S. There was an email [1] that didn't add the "[DISCUSS]" label, > >>>>> which might be a little confusing. So I sent the email again for > >>>>> discussion. Please do not reply to the previous email. > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/6gj16pmrjk6ncsd30xrl20pr5ng6t61o > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Yunze > >> >
