Hi Gouzhang
I hope the wikipage looks better now. made a little more effort into the
diagram. Still not ideal but I think it serves its purpose.
On 02.11.2017 01:17, Guozhang Wang wrote:
Thanks for the KIP writeup Jan. I made a first pass and here are some quick
comments:
1. Could we use
Hi.
Im not 100 % up to date what version 1.0 DSL looks like ATM.
I just would argue that repartitioning should be an own API call like
through or something.
One can use through or to already to get this. I would argue one should
look there instead of overloads
Best Jan
On 04.11.2017 16:01,
Hi,
Thanks for your comments.
@Ted
API is given without much javadoc on the role / meaning of method
> parameters.
- I thought they are self-explanatory but I will add some more comments in
the document.
@Matthias
- how does this relate to `KStream#through()` ?
- The main difference betw
w.r.t. KIP-182, KAFKA-5651 has been resolved.
But the KIP is still labeled Under Discussion.
Should KIP-182 be moved to Adopted state ?
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 10:06 AM, Matthias J. Sax
wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP.
>
> Two comments/questions:
>
> - how does this relate to `KStream#through()` ?
I have updated KIP-209.
Determined the \", \\ and \; meanings
Also introduced the possibility of using $ to translate as system properties.
I"m not using an BNF formal language here, as I don't think it's
needed.. it seems pretty obvious what it would be accomplished here.
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017
Thanks for the KIP.
Two comments/questions:
- how does this relate to `KStream#through()` ?
- do we really need to add new overload or can we just extends exiting
options (cf KIP-182); it would be create if we could just extend
existing classes like `Produced` instead of adding new methods to "
Ah. I actually created both of those in the PR and forgot to mention them
by name in the KIP! Thanks for pointing out the oversight.
I’ll revise the KIP this afternoon accordingly.
The logging is actually provided for in the record collector. Whenever a
handler continues it’ll log a warning to en
Yes. A KIP needs 3 binding "+1" to be accepted.
You can still work on the PR and get it ready to get merged -- I am
quite confident that this KIP will be accepted :)
-Matthias
On 11/4/17 3:56 PM, Matt Farmer wrote:
> Bump! I believe I need two more binding +1's to proceed?
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2
One more comment.
You mention a default implementation for the handler that fails. I
think, this should be part of the public API and thus should have a
proper defined named that is mentioned in the KIP.
We could also add a second implementation for the log-and-move-on
strategy, as both are the t
Thanks for the KIP Vito!
I agree with what Guozhang said. The original idea of the Jira was, to
give different exceptions for different "recovery" strategies to the user.
For example, if a store is currently recreated, a user just need to wait
and can query the store later. On the other hand, if
I like this KIP. Can you also link to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6126 in the KIP?
What I am wondering though: if we start to partially (ie, step by step)
replace the existing StreamsKafkaClient with Java AdminClient, don't we
need more KIPs? For example, if we use purge-api for in
API is given without much javadoc on the role / meaning of method
parameters.
Can you enrich with descriptive javadoc ?
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
> Dear community,
>
> I would like to initiate discussion on KIP-221 [1] based on issue [2].
> Please feel free to commen
Juergen Zimmermann created KAFKA-6171:
-
Summary: [1.0.0] Logging is broken with Windows and Java 9
Key: KAFKA-6171
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6171
Project: Kafka
Iss
Dear community,
I would like to initiate discussion on KIP-221 [1] based on issue [2].
Please feel free to comment.
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-221%3A+Repartition+Topic+Hints+in+Streams
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6037
Cheers,
Jeyhun
Bump! I believe I need two more binding +1's to proceed?
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:49 AM Ted Yu wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding) from me. Thanks!
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Guozhang Wang
> wrote:
> >
> > > The vote should stay
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6031?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Matthias J. Sax resolved KAFKA-6031.
Resolution: Duplicate
Closing this because title of KAFKA-6144 is more descriptive.
> Expos
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6169?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ryan P resolved KAFKA-6169.
---
Resolution: Won't Fix
> Kafka Log should reject negative timestamps
> ---
17 matches
Mail list logo
