[DISCUSS] PIP-259: Make the config httpMaxRequestHeaderSize of the pulsar web server to configurable

Hi community I am starting a DISCUSS for "PIP-259: Make the config httpMaxRequestHeaderSize of the pulsar web server configurable". ### Motivation We have two ways to manage pulsar's resources: - By client API (Can manage some resources, such as `create topic`, `create subscriber`, and so on) -

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-246: Improved PROTOBUF_NATIVE schema compatibility checks without using avro-protobuf

1. > > Why? The root message name is not written over the wire to the best of my > > knowledge. I haven't found it written in the official doc. The name of the root message check is the rules in the previous `ProtobufNativeSchemaCompatibilityCheck`. Because if the root message has a different na

Re: [Discuss] PIP-248: Add backlog eviction metric

> Perhaps clarify, they can call: > getStats(subscriptionBacklogSize=true, getPreciseBacklog=false, > getEarliestTimeInBacklog=false) > Each subscription will contain backlogSize. > The subscription with max backlogSize will also be the one with oldest age. Yes, "The subscription with max backlog

Re: [Discuss] PIP-256: Building Great Developer Experience with API Content

I read the PIP but I can't understand the following: 1. What are the exact problems we have? I can say for example that a concrete issue is that the parameters for the rest API endpoints are not documented at all. (see getStats )

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-253: Expose producer metrics for deadLetterProducer and retryLetterProducer

Who can help, who knows SpotBugs? On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 1:14 AM Kai Levy wrote: > Thanks for the suggestion Asaf, unfortunately that hasn't resolved the > issue with SpotBugs. You can see the commit here > < > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/033087134e5f5417af5d8fa5e0cace41b597a2a6 > >

Re: [Discuss] PIP-248: Add backlog eviction metric

Ok. >1. Find the backlog subscriptions >After received the alarm, users could request Topics#getStats(topicName, >true/false, true, true) > > > to

Re: Release 2.11.1

+1, Thanks for your work! Best, Mattison On Mar 15, 2023, 15:24 +0800, PengHui Li , wrote: > +1 > > Just a reminder, this one [0] might be a blocker for the subsequent patch > releases since it has introduced a new rule of the rule_name. > Here [1] is the discussion under the private mailing threa

Implement canonical URLs in Pulsar docs for SEO

Hi, everyone, When researching tagging metadata to Pulsar docs for SEO, I found this issue that we don't have a strategy/implementation to always return the latest stable version of Pulsar docs in the Google search results [1], leading to confusion and bad UX. After searching existing issues,

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Pulsar Client Python 3.1.0 released

The Apache Pulsar team is proud to announce Apache Pulsar Client Python version 3.1.0. Pulsar is a highly scalable, low latency messaging platform running on commodity hardware. It provides simple pub-sub semantics over topics, guaranteed at-least-once delivery of messages, automatic cursor manage

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

Hi all, Could anyone take a look at this PR (https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19414)? It has been open for over a month and I rebased to the latest master now. Thanks, Yunze On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:56 AM r...@apache.org wrote: > > +1（non-binding） > In the Go SDK, we expose the interface

[VOTE] PIP-254: Support configuring client version with a description suffix

Hi all, This thread is to start the vote for PIP-254. Discussion thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/65cf7w76tt23sbsjnr8rpfxqf1nt9s9l PIP link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19705 Thanks, Yunze

Re: [Discuss] PIP-256: Building Great Developer Experience with API Content

Hi Dave and tison, thanks for your feedback! I've added the required info and explanations to the PIP issue [1] concisely. Feel free to take a look and leave your suggestions. TIA! [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19755 Yu On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:11 AM tison wrote: > Hi Yu, > >

Re: Release 2.11.1

+1 Just a reminder, this one [0] might be a blocker for the subsequent patch releases since it has introduced a new rule of the rule_name. Here [1] is the discussion under the private mailing thread. IMO, we should revert this change first before starting the release. And I also hope more PMCs ca