Hi, Hang
Thanks for your verification.
> - When running produce and consume, and the client calls close, it
shows `ConnectError` in the close method
I have created an issue to track it. [0] This issue was not introduced
in 3.1.0. It does not need to be a blocker.
> When build the source code w
FYI, the latest branch-2.11 is broken for cpp tests [1]. But the root
cause is the Pulsar standalone could no longer start
```
org.apache.pulsar.client.admin.PulsarAdminException$NotAuthorizedException:
Unauthorized to validateTenantOperation for originalPrincipal [null]
and clientAppId [anonymous
+1 (binding)
- Verified 1 checksum is valid
- Verified 1 signature is valid
- Verified relevant source files have ASL2 license
- Verified that tests pass for git repo tag (using ./gradlew build).
Note that I had some trouble because I didn't realize I needed docker
in order to run the tests.
- Ver
Hi Jiaqi,
Let's move to https://lists.apache.org/thread/mbrpjsgrgwrlkdpvkk738jxnlk7rf4qk
for the vote.
Thanks,
Yunze
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 1:54 PM Jiaqi Shen wrote:
>
> This is make sense to me, +1
>
> Thanks,
> Jiaqi Shen
>
>
> Yunze Xu 于2022年12月7日周三 13:51写道：
>
> > Hi Baodi,
> >
> > I decide
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 8, 2022, at 9:30 PM, Michael Marshall wrote:
>
> I ran `java -jar ~/Downloads/apache-rat-0.15/apache-rat-0.15.jar .`
> and I see that all but these two files have license headers:
>
> pulsar-client-reactive-adapter/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache
This is make sense to me, +1
Thanks,
Jiaqi Shen
Yunze Xu 于2022年12月7日周三 13:51写道：
> Hi Baodi,
>
> I decided not to change the behavior of the `negativeAcknowledge`
> method. I just checked again that there is no exception signature for
> this method and there is no asynchronous version like
> `n
+1 (binding)
I sent a note to the discussion thread about the naming of the broker
setting. I don't see a reason for that minor decision to slow down
this PIP's acceptance though.
Thanks,
Michael
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:39 AM Jiuming Tao
wrote:
>
> bump, need one more binding
>
> Jiuming Tao
GitHub user tisonkun added a comment to the discussion: [client] Support
cumulative acknowledgement at partitioned topic
See also https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/6796 for more information.
It seems we can `acknowledgeCumulative` on partitioned topics but the result is
to ack the specifi
Thanks for the proposal. I think this will be a valuable addition, and
I wonder if it makes sense to add a similar proposal to optionally
monitor the binary protocol in the same way.
One minor question about naming. I see that we have the following
boolean configurations with "metrics" in the name
GitHub user fxbing created a discussion: [client] Support cumulative
acknowledgement at partitioned topic
**Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.**
Currently cumulative acknowledgement is not supported on partitioned topics.
**Describe the solution you'd like**
Do `ack
I ran `java -jar ~/Downloads/apache-rat-0.15/apache-rat-0.15.jar .`
and I see that all but these two files have license headers:
pulsar-client-reactive-adapter/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.pulsar.reactive.client.api.MessageGroupingFunction
pulsar-client-reactive-producer-cache-c
+1 (non-binding)
Followed validation process @
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-reactive/wiki/Release-process#release-validation
- Verified checksum, signature, sources match git tag
- Ran simple pulsar-client-reactive app using staged maven artifacts
LGTM,
Chris
On 2022/12/08 18:43:42 D
GitHub user tisonkun added a comment to the discussion: support cloud event
Moved to the Discussion forum since there's no design or volunteer works on it
now.
It requires a PIP to add such a support.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18827#discussioncomment-4348975
GitHub user johanhaleby added a comment to the discussion: support cloud event
I think this would be a great contribution.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18827#discussioncomment-4348972
This is an automatically sent email for dev@pulsar.apache.org.
To unsubscri
GitHub user devinbost added a comment to the discussion: support cloud event
I'm interested in this. We're taking a serious look at CloudEvents.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18827#discussioncomment-4348973
This is an automatically sent email for dev@pulsar.a
GitHub user sijie added a comment to the discussion: support cloud event
for people who are interested in this topic, here is the proposal :
https://github.com/cloudevents/spec/pull/237/files
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18827#discussioncomment-4348970
This
GitHub user sijie added a comment to the discussion: support cloud event
@tangxusc there was actually a proposal I sent to cloud events a year ago. we
can pick it up again. also if you are interested in contributing this, you are
very welcome to do so.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/
GitHub user aahmed-se added a comment to the discussion: support cloud event
It's been discussed though not enough requests have been made to give
consideration.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18827#discussioncomment-4348966
This is an automatically sent email
GitHub user sijie added a comment to the discussion: support cloud event
The proposal was a bit old. I think the CloudEvents has evolved to 1.0. So the
proposal might need to be reworked to 1.0 specification.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18827#discussioncomment-43
GitHub user aslom added a comment to the discussion: support cloud event
@sijie how can I find that proposal? link?
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18827#discussioncomment-4348969
This is an automatically sent email for dev@pulsar.apache.org.
To unsubscribe, ple
GitHub user tangxusc created a discussion: support cloud event
**Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.**
Does pulsar now support cloud event for cncf? Are there any plans for future
support?
Is there a support plan for knative event components?
**Describe the solution
GitHub user j4fm added a comment to the discussion: support cloud event
+1
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18827#discussioncomment-4348967
This is an automatically sent email for dev@pulsar.apache.org.
To unsubscribe, please send an email to: dev-unsubscr...@pul
GitHub user nodece added a comment to the discussion: [OAuth 2.0] Expand OAuth
2.0 flow and token retrieval options
See #18798
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18788#discussioncomment-4348932
This is an automatically sent email for dev@pulsar.apache.org.
To uns
Hi Enrico,
Thank you for your feedback!
I want to add more context to the issues you mentioned here:
1. Migration plan: The proposed changes are backward compatible, it still
allows the current configuration scheme (using command line), only that it
allows an optional alternative way of providin
Hi Zike, thanks for your great job!
Verified:
- Verified checksum and signatures
- Build from source code on Ubuntu 20.04
- Verified produce and test on DEB followed by [0]
I found the following issues.
- When running produce and consume, and the client calls close, it
shows `ConnectError`
Hi Enrico,
Sure, we can go back to the discussion thread and I'll pause this voting
thread for now until we address the concerns in the design.
Cheers,
Yufei
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 6:05 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> -1 (binding)
> sorry I missed the discussion.
>
> It is not clear to me about th
-1 (binding)
sorry I missed the discussion.
It is not clear to me about the security model of this change.
The command line is not updatable for a process but other users may be able
to update the configuration file or access tokens or other security
parameters.
Also we need to define a migration
GitHub user ShuAiii added a comment to the discussion: connect to broker in
standalone mode via Kubernetes
Thank you
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18772#discussioncomment-4346236
This is an automatically sent email for dev@pulsar.apache.org.
To unsubscribe, p
+1 (binding)
Checksum and signatures are valid.
LICENSE and NOTICE are present and valid
No binaries in the release.
Sources have AL2 license headers.
LGTM,
Dave
> On Dec 8, 2022, at 7:07 AM, Christophe Bornet wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> - Followed the release validation procedure:
>-
+1 (non-binding)
- Followed the release validation procedure:
- verified checksum and signature
- verified sources match git tag
- Ran successfully Spring-Pulsar test suite with the staged artifacts from
the Maven repo
Best regards.
Christophe
Le jeu. 8 déc. 2022 à 14:31, Lari Hotari a
+1, binding
- sources, signature and checksums validated for source package in
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-client-reactive-0.1.0-candidate-2/
- sha512 checksum matches
dee10f0caa37f0b9b273b286627dec3abf289f5b1f7f3f4ea67bfaeff0f2bf4af57983b61df2cedc06536ddc513f550a16e1ec
Following PIP-205: Reactive Java client for Apache Pulsar (
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/17335), this is release
candidate 2 for the Reactive Java client for Apache Pulsar, version 0.1.0.
*** Please download, test and vote on this release. This vote will stay open
for at least 72 hours
Hi, all,
I've created PIP-228 to discuss - Refactor the Information Architecture of
Pulsar Client Docs.
Motivation
* Improve the developer experience and help them get started by offering
bite-sized basics in the docs.
* Build a solid content structure to make it easier to increment a
Actually I'm refactoring the MessageId related code [1], whose current
implementations are very messy from my perspective. My solution to
this issue is adding two compare methods, one of them is the "wrong"
implementation and used in `MessageId#compareTo` to avoid the breaking
change. See the `lega
Hi, Yunze:
If we don't change this behavior, we should pay special attention when
coding `pulsar-client`, because it is a point that is easy to
overlook. its impact may be more serious than "wrong " behavior
produced by the user using the current compareTo() method manually. I
don’t think this is a
Actually, from the user side, this comparison would never happen.
Users could never receive two MessageId objects with the same ledger
id, entry id while the batch index fields are different. This
comparison could only exist in the `pulsar-client` implementation.
If users touch the case, the Messa
Hi, all:
does anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks,
bo
丛搏 于2022年11月21日周一 18:57写道：
>
> Hello, Pulsar community:
>
> now when `BatchMessageIdImpl` and `MessageIdImpl` with the same
> `ledgerId` and `EntryId`, one of it compare with the other, the
> `BatchMessageIdImpl` will always be greater than
So, close this vote and wait for these patches to be merged, and then start
the new release.
Regards
Jiwei Guo (Tboy)
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 2:35 PM PengHui Li wrote:
> Thanks, Mattison
>
> It's better also to have https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18755 for
> the next RC
> I have merged
Thank you, Dave, for validating the release requirements.
The PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-reactive/pull/101 contains
fixes.
This vote for pulsar-client-reactive 0.1.0 candidate 1 release is over. I'll
start a new rc after the fixes have been merged.
-Lari
On 2022/12/07 21:42:
39 matches
Mail list logo
