Hangleton commented on code in PR #13240:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/13240#discussion_r1130866578
##########
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/common/requests/OffsetCommitResponse.java:
##########
@@ -119,28 +131,52 @@ public boolean shouldClientThrottle(short version) {
return version >= 4;
}
+ public short version() {
+ return version;
+ }
+
public static class Builder {
OffsetCommitResponseData data = new OffsetCommitResponseData();
HashMap<String, OffsetCommitResponseTopic> byTopicName = new
HashMap<>();
+ private final TopicResolver topicResolver;
+ private final short version;
+
+ public Builder(TopicResolver topicResolver, short version) {
Review Comment:
Hi David, thanks for the insight. I think you are right that implementing
support of topic ids in the functional layer before exposing it in the API
makes sense as it provides the guarantee that offsets and metadata belong to
the partitions of the right topic in case of homonyms.
Now, one question is how deep we go in the integration of ids in this layer.
Would you consider changing the data model authored by the group coordinator
down to the `OffsetCommitValue ` as prescribed by KIP 848?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: jira-unsubscr...@kafka.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
