Good idea, this will prevent a couple of headaches.
Regards
Patrik
> Am 13.06.2019 um 00:24 schrieb Matthias J. Sax :
>
> We want to make a small additional change and piggy-back it to this KIP.
>
> To exploit the new feature of AdmintClient in KafkaStreams, we want to
> update the default valu
We want to make a small additional change and piggy-back it to this KIP.
To exploit the new feature of AdmintClient in KafkaStreams, we want to
update the default value of Streams configuration parameter
`replication.factor` from `1` to `-1`.
This config change will of course only go into 2.4 rel
Hello everyone - the PR is out and ready to review!
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6728/
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:57 AM Almog Gavra wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the comments and discussion! Closing the voting out
> for this KIP:
>
> * 4 Binding (Randall, Manikumar, Colin, Gwen)
> * 2 Non
Thanks everyone for the comments and discussion! Closing the voting out for
this KIP:
* 4 Binding (Randall, Manikumar, Colin, Gwen)
* 2 Non-Binding (Ryanne, Mickael)
Cheers,
Almog
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:55 AM Gwen Shapira wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 9:32 AM Almog Gav
Thanks, Almog.
+1 (binding) for this simpler KIP.
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 11:37 AM Manikumar
wrote:
> Hi Almog,
>
> +1 (binding), Thanks for the KIP.
>
> Thanks,
> Manikumar
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:02 PM Almog Gavra wrote:
>
> > I'm happy pulling it out into a separate KIP to target the
+1 (binding)
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 9:32 AM Almog Gavra wrote:
> I'm happy pulling it out into a separate KIP to target the discussion. This
> one can just introduce the "default" constructor for no partitions or
> replicas since we'll need that one whether or not we add the builder.
>
> Update
I'm happy pulling it out into a separate KIP to target the discussion. This
one can just introduce the "default" constructor for no partitions or
replicas since we'll need that one whether or not we add the builder.
Updated the KIP moving the builder to a section in "Rejected Alternatives -
Follow
Hi Almog,
+1 (binding), Thanks for the KIP.
Thanks,
Manikumar
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:02 PM Almog Gavra wrote:
> I'm happy pulling it out into a separate KIP to target the discussion. This
> one can just introduce the "default" constructor for no partitions or
> replicas since we'll need th
Given that there are still some open questions about the builder, maybe we
should put it in a separate KIP?
best,
Colin
On Fri, May 10, 2019, at 09:00, Ryanne Dolan wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) for the core feature, but I could take or leave the
> builder.
>
> Ryanne
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at
+1 (non-binding) for the core feature, but I could take or leave the
builder.
Ryanne
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:43 AM Almog Gavra wrote:
> @Ismael - I agree that the methods are a little random. They were just
> ported from what's currently in the connect builder. I think a better
> option migh
@Ismael - I agree that the methods are a little random. They were just
ported from what's currently in the connect builder. I think a better
option might be to keep the connect builder around and have extend from
this builder, and make this builder only implement the "critical" methods
(e.g. replic
The current builder includes random methods like uncleanLeaderElection.
That doesn't make sense to me since it's a topic config (and we don't
include methods for other topic configs). Also, I'm not sure about the
naming convention, should we have a `with` prefix? It would be good to
check existing
+! (binding) on the current KIP with the builder, based on the fact that
the builder simplifies usage vs adding other constructors and is more
easily extended over time.
Randall
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 5:38 PM Almog Gavra wrote:
> Thanks Colin! Since the discussion around the builder is here I'l
Thanks Colin! Since the discussion around the builder is here I'll copy
over my comment from the discuss thread:
If we want the flexibility that the builder provides we would need to add
three constructors:
- no partitions/replicas
- just partitions
- just replicas
I see good use cases for the fi
+1 (binding).
Re: the builder discussion. I don't feel strongly either way-- the builder
sketched out in the KIP looks reasonable, but I can also understand Ismael's
argument for keeping the KIP minimal.
best,
Colin
On Thu, May 9, 2019, at 08:09, Randall Hauch wrote:
> I'm fine with simplify
I'm fine with simplifying the KIP by removing the Builder (which seems
ancillary), or keeping the KIP as-is. I'll wait to vote until Almog says
which way he'd like to proceed.
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:45 AM Ismael Juma wrote:
> Hi Almog,
>
> Adding a Builder seems unrelated to this change. Do we
Hi Almog,
Adding a Builder seems unrelated to this change. Do we need it? Given the
imminent KIP deadline, I'd keep it simple and just have the constructor
with just the name parameter.
Ismael
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:58 AM Mickael Maison
wrote:
> I was planning to write a KIP for the exact sa
I was planning to write a KIP for the exact same feature!
+1 (non binding)
Thanks for the KIP
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:24 PM Almog Gavra wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone!
>
> Kicking off the voting for
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-464%3A+Defaults+for+AdminClient%23createTopic
Hello Everyone!
Kicking off the voting for
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-464%3A+Defaults+for+AdminClient%23createTopic
You can see discussion thread here (please respond with suggestions on that
thread):
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c0adfd2457e5984be7471fe6ade8a94
19 matches
Mail list logo
