where they define the concept of individual ack
>>> which means we could skip records and leave certain records remain on the
>>> queue for late processing. This should be something similar to KIP-408
>>> which also shares some motivations for us to invest.
>>>
>
yang
>>
>> ____________________
>> From: Richard Yu
>> Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 5:42 AM
>> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-408: Add Asynchronous Processing to Kafka
>> Streams
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just b
y, January 4, 2019 5:42 AM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-408: Add Asynchronous Processing to Kafka
> Streams
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just bumping this KIP. Would be great if we got some discussion.
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 5:13 PM Richard Yu
> wrote:
&
ain on the queue for
late processing. This should be something similar to KIP-408 which also shares
some motivations for us to invest.
Boyang
From: Richard Yu
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 5:42 AM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-40
Hi all,
Just bumping this KIP. Would be great if we got some discussion.
On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 5:13 PM Richard Yu
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I made some recent changes to the KIP. It should be more relevant with the
> issue now (involves Processor API in detail).
> It would be great if you could c
Hi all,
I made some recent changes to the KIP. It should be more relevant with the
issue now (involves Processor API in detail).
It would be great if you could comment.
Thanks,
Richard
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 10:01 PM Richard Yu
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just changing the title of the KIP. Discover
Hi all,
Just changing the title of the KIP. Discovered it wasn't right.
Thats about it. :)
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 7:57 PM Richard Yu
wrote:
> Sorry, just making a correction.
>
> Even if we are processing records out of order, we will still have to
> checkpoint offset ranges.
> So it doesn't r
