Re: [DISCUSS]

The proposal looks good to me, just want to clear a part about the compatibility, if the users upgrade the client to the new version and the broker still use the old one, the client can only send the new command to the broker if the broker with the new protocol version right? Currently, we are send

Re: [Proposal] Make Dispatcher pluggable

Sorry for the late reply, If a batch has 10 messages, but users only want to filter out parts of them such as 3 messages, only 7 messages should be processed at the consumer side. So if the proposal is for the entry filter, I think we should have the EntryFitler interface, not MessageFilter? Actu

Re: Problems with PIP ID Management

Hi Enrico, Thank you for raising this concern. Apparently acquiring a distributed lock on a PIP number is non-trivial :) > What about sending an email to dev in order to ask for a new PIP id ? In this design, is it up to a committer (someone with write access to the Wiki page) to reply to the re

Re: Problems with PIP ID Management

It is funny that we have four unrelated PIP-95 proposals. By the above principle, the true PIP 95 is "Smart Listener Selection with Multiple Bind Addresses". :) On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 10:47 AM Michael Marshall wrote: > Hi Enrico, > > Thank you for raising this concern. Apparently acquiring a

Re: [PIP 95] Smart Listener Selection with Multiple Bind Addresses

Re-upping this discussion. Seems like the community is ready to accept the proposal, any objections? Thanks! Eron Wright On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:23 AM Eron Wright wrote: > Hi, > I've created PIP 95 to improve multi-listener support to automatically > select the appropriate listener in topic

Re: [PIP 95] Smart Listener Selection with Multiple Bind Addresses

Eron, I missed your initial message, thanks for bumping up this thread. I read the proposal and I am +1 You should run a VOTE now Enrico Il Ven 24 Set 2021, 20:21 Eron Wright ha scritto: > Re-upping this discussion. Seems like the community is ready to accept the > proposal, any objections?

[VOTE] [PIP 95] Smart Listener Selection with Multiple Bind Addresses

Dear Pulsar community, please vote now on PIP 95: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12040 Note that there are numerous proposals that have been labeled as PIP 95. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Eron Wright StreamNative

Re: [VOTE] [PIP 95] Smart Listener Selection with Multiple Bind Addresses

+1 Thanks Enrico Il giorno ven 24 set 2021 alle ore 21:41 Eron Wright ha scritto: > Dear Pulsar community, please vote now on PIP 95: > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12040 > > Note that there are numerous proposals that have been labeled as PIP 95. > Sorry for the inconvenience. > > -

PIP-99 Pulsar Proxy Extensions

(renaming to PIP-99 and acquiring a lock on the ID) Please take a final look. Now the scope is clearer, we do not want to add a new kind of "Protocol Handlers", but to add a way to add extensions to the existing Pulsar proxy service. I know that someone (namely Sijie and JoeF) have some concerns

Re: [VOTE] [PIP 95] Smart Listener Selection with Multiple Bind Addresses

+1 (non-binding) Thanks, Michael On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:01 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > +1 > > Thanks > Enrico > > Il giorno ven 24 set 2021 alle ore 21:41 Eron Wright > ha scritto: > > > Dear Pulsar community, please vote now on PIP 95: > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12040 > >

Re: [VOTE] [PIP 95] Smart Listener Selection with Multiple Bind Addresses

+1 -- Matteo Merli On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 12:41 PM Eron Wright wrote: > > Dear Pulsar community, please vote now on PIP 95: > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12040 > > Note that there are numerous proposals that have been labeled as PIP 95. > Sorry for the inconvenience. > > -- > Eron W

Re: PIP 97: Asynchronous Authentication

Hi Pulsar Community, It's great to see so many active PIP emails going around on our ML. :) Following up on my PIP for Asynchronous Authentication Providers, I haven't received much feedback on the GitHub Issue itself yet (https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12105). If you have time, I'd grea

Re: PIP-95 Live migration of producer consumer from one cluster to another.

Hi Prashant, I think that this proposal could be worded in a slightly more general way. Other than migrating to different clusters, it could be very well useful for migrating to a different topic name, or to move the topic to a different namespace. For that the redirection could also include a "to

Re: PIP-95 Live migration of producer consumer from one cluster to another.

Is this mostly addressing a topic cutover or a whole cluster cutover? What is "pulsar-admin clusters set-generation --generation " That seems to dangle in the doc, without any explanation On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:19 AM Prashant Kumar < prashant.kumar.si...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Pulsar

Re: Problems with PIP ID Management

Michael, Il Ven 24 Set 2021, 19:47 Michael Marshall ha scritto: > Hi Enrico, > > Thank you for raising this concern. Apparently acquiring a distributed > lock on a PIP number is non-trivial :) > We could use the first 3 digits of a hash computed on the title of the PIP. Just joking:) > > What