Thanks for all your suggestions.
> For further improvement, I think we can deprecate `maxPendingChunkedMessage`
> by extending the scope of `ClientBuilder#memoryLimit` to consumers.
+1
I have created a PR to fix this inconsistency:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14144 PTAL.
Thanks,
Zik
> I agree with updating the Javadoc to align with the actual code. This
> will lead to fewer surprises,
+1.
For further improvement, I think we can deprecate `maxPendingChunkedMessage` by
extending the scope of `ClientBuilder#memoryLimit` to consumers.
Thanks,
Haiting
On 2022/02/01 05:23:06
> We found that there are inconsistencies between the code and the
> documentation regarding the default value of maxPendingChunkedMessage.
Great find!
> A chunked buffer to contain all chunks could use much memory, for example, if
> a
> message was split into N chunks, since each chunk is 5MB b
Hi, Yunze,
Thanks for your opinion.
> A chunked buffer to contain all chunks could use much memory, for example, if
> a
> message was split into N chunks, since each chunk is 5MB by default, then 100
> buffers will use N*500 MB. It could reach 1GB if N > 2.
>
> In addition, normally, only if at
After thinking for a while, I’d prefer 10 as the default value and I changed
the default value to 10 in C++ client, see
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14070.
A chunked buffer to contain all chunks could use much memory, for example, if a
message was split into N chunks, since each chunk is
Hi, Pulsar community,
We found that there are inconsistencies between the code and the
documentation regarding the default value of maxPendingChunkedMessage.
In the java client code, we use 10 as the default value. [1] But in
the java doc, we use 100 as the default value. [2]
We need to fix this
