I just had a flaky test failure due to the streaming dispatcher, so I decided to move this discussion along by creating a PR to do what Enrico proposed [0].
Do we need to discuss this any further before making the PR "ready for review" and removing the streaming dispatcher? > Shouldn't it first be deprecated before removal ? The feature is documented as being in "preview" [1] so I am not sure that is necessary. Thanks, Michael [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20279 [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/0b4c29d091fca6606490aabdccc400280b191f17/pulsar-broker-common/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/ServiceConfiguration.java#L1175-L1180 On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 7:50 PM Christophe Bornet <bornet.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Shouldn't it first be deprecated before removal ? > > Le mar. 4 avr. 2023 à 08:47, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > Hello, > > It has been a long time that we have in the Pulsar code a new > > experimental Dispatcher implementation named StreamingDispatcher. > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/9056 > > > > There are many flaky tests about that feature and I believe that it > > has never been used in Production by anyone, because it happened a few > > times that we did some changes in the regular Dispatcher and > > introduced bugs on the StreamingDispacther (usually manifested as > > flaky tests) > > > > > > I propose to drop the StreamingDispatcher code for Pulsar 3.0. > > I don't think we need a PIP for this, it is an experimental code that > > was never delivered as a production ready feature. > > > > If anyone is aware of users please chime in. > > > > If anyone wants to sponsor that feature and objects in removing this > > dead code (that we still have to maintain) please help us in > > completing the feature. > > > > On paper it is a very appealing feature, and I am disappointed in dropping > > it. > > On the other hand, this is dead code that we have to maintain with zero > > benefit > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > Enrico
