+1 (binding) Though I agree with Asaf that this proposal itself is not clear, I think the design Is easy to understand from the PR that a new field is added only for serialization and deserialization for a MessageId.
Thanks, Yunze > On Jun 21, 2023, at 03:08, Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > -1 (non-binding) > > The reason I'm asking all these questions on the DISCUSS is that I still > haven't managed to understand how you plan to solve the pain described. > Not to mention the lack of information in the design document I mentioned > in my replies to the discussion > > This DISCUSS thread is not resolved yet from my point of view. > The design document is not clear to me at all. > > Hence I would like to continue to understand it in the discussion thread. > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:00 AM Rajan Dhabalia <rdhaba...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Hi. >> >> Pulsar api provides MessageId interface which is generally used by producer >> and consumer applications to manage topic offset. Sometimes, these >> applications would like to serialize and deserialize messageIds, >> specifically consumer app which would like to persist messageId and ack >> with those messageIds by deserializing them. However, right now Pulsar >> doesn't support correct deserialization of multi-topic or partitioned-topic >> because of that 1acknowledge` API call fails for those topics with below >> error: >> "Only TopicMessageId is allowed to acknowledge for a multi-topics consumer" >> >> Please visit PIP for any suggestions: >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/20221 >> >> This PIP is created with PR: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19944 >> >> Thanks, >> Rajan >>
