Agree.
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Dana Powers wrote:
>
>> Updated:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-57+-+Interoperable+LZ4+Framing
>>
>> Should I restart the vote?
>>
>
> I think the update is small enough that we
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Dana Powers wrote:
> Updated:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-57+-+Interoperable+LZ4+Framing
>
> Should I restart the vote?
>
I think the update is small enough that we don't need to restart the vote.
Ismael
Ok -- removed Public Interfaces discussion. It should be up to date w/
PR review comments now.
-Dana
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> One more suggestion Dana, I would remove the "Public interfaces" section as
> those classes are not actually public (only the classes with Jav
Updated:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-57+-+Interoperable+LZ4+Framing
Should I restart the vote?
-Dana
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Dana Powers wrote:
>>
>> > 2. We're completely disabling checksumming of the comp
One more suggestion Dana, I would remove the "Public interfaces" section as
those classes are not actually public (only the classes with Javadoc are
public: https://kafka.apache.org/090/javadoc/index.html) and the
information in the KIP is a bit stale when compared to the PR.
Ismael
On Fri, May 6
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Dana Powers wrote:
>
> > 2. We're completely disabling checksumming of the compressed payload on
> > consumption. Normally you'd want to validate each level of framing for
> > correct end-to-end validation. You could still do this (albeit more
> weakly)
> > by valid
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava
wrote:
> Two questions:
>
> 1. My understanding based on KIP-35 is that this won't be a problem for
> clients that want to support older broker versions since they will use v0
> produce requests with broken checksum to send to those, and any b
Two questions:
1. My understanding based on KIP-35 is that this won't be a problem for
clients that want to support older broker versions since they will use v0
produce requests with broken checksum to send to those, and any broker
advertising support for v1 produce requests will also support vali
Hi Dana,
Thank you for proposing this fix. It looks great to me (and LinkedIn,
who are running trunk confirmed that they did not use LZ4 yet).
Since for 0.10.0 time is of essence, do you mind starting a voting
thread in parallel?
Gwen
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Dana Powers wrote:
> Hi all
Thanks for submitting the KIP Dana.
I think it would make a lot of sense to include this change as part of the
bump to message format 1 (although it's a bit tight given the current
release plan).
Ismael
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Dana Powers wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've written up a new KIP
10 matches
Mail list logo
