Yes, Thank you, Ismael.
Many thanks to everyone for the feedback and votes. The vote has passed
with 5 binding (Neha, Ewen, Sriram, Ismael, Jason) and three non-binding
(Edo, Apurva, me) +1s. I will update the KIP pages.
Regards,
Rajini
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
>
Rajini, maybe we can close the vote?
Ismael
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Apurva Mehta wrote:
> +1 (non-binding).
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Jason Gustafson
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the KIP. +1
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the KIP
+1 (non-binding).
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP. +1
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the KIP, +1 (binding).
> >
> > As I said in the discussion thread, I'm not too sure about the hardcoded
> 30
> > seconds time
Thanks for the KIP. +1
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP, +1 (binding).
>
> As I said in the discussion thread, I'm not too sure about the hardcoded 30
> seconds timeout for the no-args `close` method. Still, it's an improvement
> over what is in trunk at th
Seems reasonable to me.
Ismael
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Rajini Sivaram
wrote:
> Ismael,
>
> Thank you, I have fixed the javadoc typo.
>
> Producers use a default close timeout of Long.MAX_VALUE, but with a default
> request timeout of 30 seconds, close would complete in ~30 seconds. The
Ismael,
Thank you, I have fixed the javadoc typo.
Producers use a default close timeout of Long.MAX_VALUE, but with a default
request timeout of 30 seconds, close would complete in ~30 seconds. The
consumer's 5 minutes request timeout is clearly too long as the default
close timeout, but if that
Thanks for the KIP, +1 (binding).
As I said in the discussion thread, I'm not too sure about the hardcoded 30
seconds timeout for the no-args `close` method. Still, it's an improvement
over what is in trunk at the moment and I don't have a good alternative
given that request.timeout is pretty long
Hi,
I am definitely in favour of aiming for good defaults. One concern I have
is that `30 seconds` is a hardcoded value and not based on any config. It
is true that users can call the `close` method that takes an explicit
timeout if necessary, but it would be nice if the no-args `close` would use
3AU
From: Rajini Sivaram
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Date: 05/01/2017 21:23
Subject:[VOTE] KIP-102 - Add close with timeout for consumers
Hi all,
I would like to start the voting process for *KIP-102 - Add close with
timeout for consumers:*
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence
I totally get the reason for the different defaults. I suspect that
someone trying to learn the API will make a reasonable assumption that
consumer.close() and producer.close() will have similar behaviors. Not
sure how important this will be though - we'll find it from the
mailing list questions, a
Hey Gwen,
I'm not super strong on this, but I think the case for a longer timeout as
the default behavior is weaker for the consumer. For the producer, it means
we might lose messages that the application tried to send. For the
consumer, it means we might lose offset commits, which means duplicate
For 0.10.2.0, this can absolutely make it in if we get the reviews done
quickly enough. The cutoff for getting a new feature in would be the
feature freeze on Jan 13 (when we generate the release branch and start
having to cherry-pick commits, so we want to limit to stabilization and
important bug
+1
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava
wrote:
> +1
>
> -Ewen
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:07 PM Rajini Sivaram
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > >
> > > I would like to start the voting proce
+1
-Ewen
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:07 PM Rajini Sivaram
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> > I would like to start the voting process for *KIP-102 - Add close with
> > timeout for consumers*:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://cwiki.apa
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:07 PM Rajini Sivaram
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> I would like to start the voting process for *KIP-102 - Add close with
> timeout for consumers*:
>
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-102+-+Add+close+with+timeout+for+consumers
>
>
>
> This
I hate going back and forth on this, but KafkaProducer.close() (with
no timeout) is equivalent to close(Long.MAX_VALUE,
TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS), while the KafkaConsumer.close() is equivalent
to close(30*1000,TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS).
Isn't this kind of inconsistency best to avoid?
On Thu, Jan 5, 201
Thank you, Ismael. I have sent another one. Hopefully that will appear in
its own thread.
Rajini
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Thanks Rajini. This seems to be happening a lot lately: Gmail is showing
> the vote message in the discuss thread.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Thu, Jan 5,
Hi all,
I would like to start the voting process for *KIP-102 - Add close with
timeout for consumers*:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-102+-+Add+close+with+timeout+for+consumers
This KIP adds a new close method with a timeout for consumers similar to
the close method in
Thanks Rajini. This seems to be happening a lot lately: Gmail is showing
the vote message in the discuss thread.
Ismael
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Rajini Sivaram
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to start the voting process for *KIP-102 - Add close with
> timeout for consumers:*
>
> https:
Hi all,
I would like to start the voting process for *KIP-102 - Add close with
timeout for consumers:*
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-102+-+Add+close+with+timeout+for+consumers
This KIP adds a new close method with a timeout for consumers similar to
the close method in th
20 matches
Mail list logo
