Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-229: Add a common interface to get fields of MessageIdData

Hi Penghui, It makes sense to me. I updated the proposal and added the API docs to the `MessageIdAdv`, as well as why will `BatchMessageAcker` be deprecated. Thanks, Yunze On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 12:57 PM PengHui Li wrote: > > Hi Yunze, > > Thanks for the explanation. Now I understand why the B

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-228: Refactor the information architecture of Pulsar client docs

Hi Zike, Thanks for your feedback! This inaccessible link can be removed because the proposed IA has been shown in the following image. Thanks for pointing it out. From: Zike Yang Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 19:51 To: dev@pulsar.apache.org Subject: Re: [

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-229: Add a common interface to get fields of MessageIdData

Hi Yunze, Thanks for the explanation. Now I understand why the BatchMessageAcker will be deprecated. For the interface face. I just thought they were for different users. For common users, they can only use MessageID. For advanced users (Pulsar ecosystem developers, client developers), they can u

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.11.0 Candidate-3

+1 (binding) - Checked the signature - Build from source - Start standalone with zookeeper - Done some simple performance test( publish, consume, and drain backlog) - Checked function - Checked Cassandra connector - Checked stateful function Thanks, Penghui On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 8:33 PM 丛搏 wr

Re: [PROPOSAL] Website precommit and move the source of docs to the site repo

+1. The most significant point to me is that we can preview all the content of the website without synchronizing contents from the apache/pulsar repo. Thanks, Yunze On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 9:53 AM Li Li wrote: > > +1, That’s a good idea. > > > On Dec 16, 2022, at 07:07, tison wrote: > > > > Hi,

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-229: Add a common interface to get fields of MessageIdData

Hi Penghui, > It looks like LedgerHandleAdv to LedgerHandle in the bookkeeper. It's different. IMO, LedgerHandleAdv to LedgerHandle, or MetadataStoreExtended to MetadataStoreExtend, are both added just to avoid adding non-default methods to the original interface. But the PulsarApiMessageId here

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.4 Candidate 3

+1 (non-binding) - Start standalone - Validate Pub/Sub and Java Functions - Validate Cassandra connector - Validate Stateful Functions Thanks, Xiangying On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 10:25 AM PengHui Li wrote: > +1 (binding) > > - Checked the signature > - Start standalone > - Publish and consume me

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-229: Add a common interface to get fields of MessageIdData

Hi Bo, For a single-topic consumer, the MessageId implementations returned by receive() should be a MessageIdImpl or BatchedMessageIdImpl. Is there any reason to add a `getTopicName()` method for them (via extending TopicMessageId)? If yes, we have to use the default implementation of `getTopicNam

Re: [PROPOSAL] Website precommit and move the source of docs to the site repo

+1, That’s a good idea. > On Dec 16, 2022, at 07:07, tison wrote: > > Hi, > > After several works around the build flow of our official website[1][2][3], > the content sync and site build flow is debuggable and reproducible now. > > However, compared to other Apache projects' websites' project

Re: [PROPOSAL] Website precommit and move the source of docs to the site repo

+1, That’s a good idea. Thanks, Li Li > On Dec 16, 2022, at 07:07, tison wrote: > > Hi, > > After several works around the build flow of our official website[1][2][3], > the content sync and site build flow is debuggable and reproducible now. > > However, compared to other Apache projects' we

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-229: Add a common interface to get fields of MessageIdData

I agree with the motivation. Just some minor suggestions: Is AdvancedMessageId or MessageIdAdv better for this case to replace PulsarApiMessageId? It looks like LedgerHandleAdv to LedgerHandle in the bookkeeper. > We have to deprecated the BatchMessageAcker, which is just a wrapper of a BitSet a

Re: [DISCUSSION] Any idea about simplify the configuration file?

> I am not sure that we need this file, we can use the documentation website to advertise about all the possibilities. +1. I also don't think we need another file for all the broker configurations. We can just provide a page with all the possibilities. > For example, the IDE code completion works

Re: [DISCUSS] forbid user to upload `BYTES` schema

+1 We should keep the behavior of the Admin API consistent with the Pulsar Client. > I think we should think about why we can not add a new schema of BYTES. > The users use the byte schema to send or consume messages. But the schema > registry has never stored the BYTES schema and we always need

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-230: Modify MessageIdImpl and BatchMessageIdImpl compareTo(MessageId o) method

Hi Bo I am confused about this proposal. Why do there exist MessageID and BatchMessageID with the same ledgerID, entryID, and partitionIndex? And why it is right that the MessageID is always bigger than the BatchMessageID? I also leave some comments below on the issue. Could you help answer it? Th

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-230: Modify MessageIdImpl and BatchMessageIdImpl compareTo(MessageId o) method

Hi Bo > Disadvantages of the current compareTo() implementation: Many users may use this method incorrectly, resulting in seek, ack, or resetCursor use incorrect MessageId, which has the risk of losing messages, because they will use a larger messageId to seek, ack etc. I'm a little curious why t

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.11.0 Candidate-3

+1 (non-binding) system: mac os 12.6, Apple M1 maven: 3.8.5 java: OpenJDK 17.0.3 - Checked the signature - Start standalone with zookeeper stream storage - Publish and consume messages - Verified Function and State Function - Verified Cassandra connector - Build from the source package Thanks, B

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP 194 : Pulsar client: seek command add epoch

Did you end up fixing the PIP? I see it wasn’t implemented at the end. On 11 Sep 2022 at 7:18:07, Qiang Huang wrote: > Hi Asaf, thank you for the very detailed reply. > > The problem we have today is that while we have sent a request to reset > > the subscription position, the broker decides t

Re: Pulsar in OpenSSF?

Bumping to verify it wasn’t missed On 24 Oct 2022 at 22:06:36, Asaf Mesika wrote: > Hi, > > I recently bumped into the Pulsar page > > in the Scorecards project of OpenSSF. > > I w

Re: [DISCUSS] General question regarding PIP comments

I submitted a PR for this here: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18974 On 1 Sep 2022 at 17:07:29, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Asaf, > good question! > > Il giorno gio 1 set 2022 alle ore 15:01 Asaf Mesika > ha scritto: > > > Hi, > > > I'm fairly new to this project and I have seen 2 options

Re: [DISCUSS] The use of consumer redeliverUnacknowledgedMessages method

Hi Baodi, Yes, in effect, I suggest that we have new Consumer interfaces, one per subscription type perhaps then we can “correct” the current interface without breaking backward compatibility. For Exclusive/Failover, since the idea in those subscription types was to maintain order, it makes sense

Re: [PROPOSAL] Website precommit and move the source of docs to the site repo

> > We don't have a pre-commit workflow for any website-related changes. > Thus, we don't detect broken links or syntax errors when reviewing new > patches[4][5][6]. When you say "pre-commit work-flow,” do you mean what exactly? Usually, a pre-commit is something you run locally upon committing. D