this one.
Congrats PengHui :)
--
*Ezequiel Lovelle*
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 15:00, Sijie Guo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:51 AM Matteo Merli
> wrote:
>
> > > I don't think the original email was trying to list all the features.
> It
> > > was tryi
Hi!
My 2 cents, as Matteo said, the feature which is worth mentioning is
negative ack instead of its interceptor.
Idk If it's as a relevant feature, but in pull #4031
<https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/4031> we've just finish
adding support for seek() in Reader impl.
--
*
() in ConsumerBuilder
and it also covers all the spectrum of *fixed delay messages* at both
sides.
Thanks!
--
*Ezequiel Lovelle*
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 21:26, Matteo Merli wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the feedback.
>
> I actually went through and gave it a shot at implementing this o
Hi!
Great work!
Just a little observation, issue 3935
<https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/3935> has 2.3.1 milestone tag but
the fix in pull 3946 <https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/3946> wasn't
merged in 2.3.1.
Thanks.
--
*Ezequiel Lovelle*
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 20
we want to have consumers with multiple behaviour.
e.g. delayed consumer plus some future feature not present right now.
Anyway, if everyone agrees with Sijie question, we might discuss this on a
separated thread.
--
*Ezequiel Lovelle*
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 08:45, Ali Ahmed wrote:
> Seems
ill need to decide if we want to add this feature at client side or
broker side, the pull request does it on the broker.
--
*Ezequiel Lovelle*
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 17:06, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi -
>
> My thoughts here may be completely useless but I wonder if clients can add
> an op
and more isolated
from broker logic. Maybe some way to plug to the broker some logic without
interfering with its core?
In our business fixed delay at consumer level regardless of any producer
configuration is a big win due to easy implementation and usage.
--
*Ezequiel Lovelle*
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019
"I agree, but that is *not what #3155 tries to achieve."
This typo made this phrase nonsense, sorry!
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019, 16:44 Ezequiel Lovelle > What exactly is the delayed delivery use case?
>
> This is helpful on systems relaying on pulsar for persistent guarantees
ust a
fixed delay for all message in a consumer, that's the reason that the
implementation of #3155 is quite trivial.
+1 from me for doing PIP-26 in functions.
--
*Ezequiel Lovelle*
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 09:57, Yuva raj wrote:
> Considering the way pulsar is built +1 for doing PIP-26
achieve
feature, and decide if we want to include #3155 to be in pulsar, discussing
its implementations details (broker side vs client side, memory usage, etc)
What you all think about this?
--
*Ezequiel Lovelle*
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 23:43, PengHui Li wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Actuall
nts are much simpler.
I agree that adding logic to broker should be considered with deep care,
but in this specific scenario at worst case we will only have one and only
one scheduled task per consumer which will take all expired positions
from a DelayQueue.
--
*Ezequiel Lovelle*
On Sat, 19 Jan
pulsar
but sometimes not everything desired is achievable.
And please correct me if I said something senseless.
--
*Ezequiel Lovelle*
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 05:51, PengHui Li wrote:
> > So rather than specifying the absolute timestamp that the message
> > should appear to the user, th
12 matches
Mail list logo
