Hi Stanislav,
Thanks for the response.
I will give it a few more days to let others look at the KIP before putting
it to a vote then.
Regards,
Kevin
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 7:32 AM Stanislav Kozlovski
wrote:
> Hey Kevin,
>
> Thanks for the KIP! This sounds like a very useful feature to have an
Hey Kevin,
Thanks for the KIP! This sounds like a very useful feature to have and
makes excellent use of the new AdminClient introduced in KIP-377 in my
opinion.
I believe it's perfectly fine to start a vote thread on the fact that
KIP-377 was accepted already.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:03 PM Kevi
Bumping this to hopefully get a couple more opinions.
Since KIP-377 has been accepted (it adds the --bootstrap-server option
needed for this KIP), do we think it is okay to proceed to vote on this KIP
without KIP-377 fully merged yet?
Thanks.
Regards,
Kevin
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 6:32 PM Kevin
Hi Mickael,
Thanks for the suggestion for getting the "computed" configuration from
AdminClient.describeConfigs(). That's exactly what I was looking for!
I have updated the KIP to use AdminClient.describeConfigs(), and included a
code snippet. Please take a look.
Since KIP-377 proposes the same
It might be worth syncing with KIP-377 which is already planning to
make TopicCommand use the AdminClient and add a --bootstrap-server
argument.
Also in the proposed changes section, you mention the challenge of
finding the topic min ISR configuration. Using the
AdminClient.describeConfigs() API,
Bumping this as I have added some additional details.
This change will require adding a "--bootstrap-server" flag to identify the
current broker/cluster configured "min.insync.replicas".
Regards,
Kevin
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:19 PM Kevin Lu wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> After some feedback, I have re
