GitHub user github-actions[bot] added a comment to the discussion: [Website +
Doc] generate connector configuration info automatically
The issue had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18776#discussioncomment-4328569
GitHub user tisonkun added a comment to the discussion: [Website + Doc]
generate connector configuration info automatically
@Anonymitaet Thanks for bubbling up this issue :)
I'll move this thread to the General discussion forum since there's no clear
plan (how to implement it) or volunteers w
Pulsar 2.11 standalone breaks the bundle of namespace policy. I'm wondering
whether blocking the Pulsar 2.11 release.
See https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18755
Thanks,
Zixuan
Enrico Olivelli 于2022年12月6日周二 21:26写道：
> +1 (binding)
> - verified checksums, digests
> - built from sources
> -
The change of a default value is acceptable in a major release. But
since it's changed back in the next 2.12 release, it could be a little
confusing. My perspective is to include this PR in the 2.11.0 release.
Thanks,
Yunze
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 11:00 AM Zixuan Liu wrote:
>
> Pulsar 2.11 standa
Hi all,
I would like to start a discussion about requiring a proposal for Admin
API/CLI
and metrics changes.
Here are some recent examples that changed the Admin API but without
proposals.
I just checked the commit logs. Maybe some have a proposal. Just forgot to
add
the proposal link to the PR.
GitHub user codelipenghui added a comment to the discussion: Package management
auth improve
The issue had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18778#discussioncomment-4329112
This is an automatically sent email for de
GitHub user zymap created a discussion: Package management auth improve
**Motivation**
Currently, if the pulsar service enables the authentication and authorization,
only the role who have `Package` permission can access the package management
service. So we need more detailed permissions for
I agree. It should have required the PIP.
I have another question. Is there any document to describe these
metrics? I think the metrics body should be documented well to avoid
breaking changes. Some external applications might parse the metrics
according to a specific structure.
Thanks,
Yunze
On
GitHub user balakrishna222111 created a discussion: Connection handshake
failed: org.apache.pulsar.client.api.PulsarClientException: Connection already
closed
**I had apache pulsar cluster in azure .**
Now i would like to connect to remote cluster from my local mahcine using Proxy
In `**prox
GitHub user codelipenghui added a comment to the discussion: Connection
handshake failed: org.apache.pulsar.client.api.PulsarClientException:
Connection already closed
Could you please help check if the problem only happens when the topic does not
exist?
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apac
GitHub user niushaoda added a comment to the discussion: Connection handshake
failed: org.apache.pulsar.client.api.PulsarClientException: Connection already
closed
This also happens when the topic exists, it is sporadic
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18779#discussi
GitHub user niushaoda added a comment to the discussion: Connection handshake
failed: org.apache.pulsar.client.api.PulsarClientException: Connection already
closed
After this happens, the connection is re-established and the message can still
be sent successfully.
GitHub link:
https://githu
GitHub user codelipenghui added a comment to the discussion: Connection
handshake failed: org.apache.pulsar.client.api.PulsarClientException:
Connection already closed
@balakrishna222111 Any update for this issue?
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18779#discussioncomm
GitHub user niushaoda added a comment to the discussion: Connection handshake
failed: org.apache.pulsar.client.api.PulsarClientException: Connection already
closed
I am send
GitHub user anishsurge added a comment to the discussion: Connection handshake
failed: org.apache.pulsar.client.api.PulsarClientException: Connection already
closed
Increasing the connectiontimeout & operationtimeout 5-10 minutes made the
connection to reestablish and was able to resolve the
GitHub user codelipenghui added a comment to the discussion: Connection
handshake failed: org.apache.pulsar.client.api.PulsarClientException:
Connection already closed
The issue had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/1877
GitHub user anishsurge added a comment to the discussion: Connection handshake
failed: org.apache.pulsar.client.api.PulsarClientException: Connection already
closed
Hey Team,
similar error we are getting when we are trying the load test with 1000 threads
creating producers for sending simpl
Hi Yunze,
All the metrics are listed here
https://pulsar.apache.org/docs/2.10.x/reference-metrics/
But maybe some are missed.
Thanks,
Penghui
On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 11:46 AM Yunze Xu
wrote:
> I agree. It should have required the PIP.
>
> I have another question. Is there any document to descr
GitHub user hpvd created a discussion: check possibilities to benefit from
Linkerd
**Is your enhancement request related to a problem? Please describe.**
Check if it's possible and worth it on the long run, to make Pulsar even
better, easier to use and maintain, more secure and enhance possib
GitHub user codelipenghui added a comment to the discussion: check
possibilities to benefit from Linkerd
The issue had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18780#discussioncomment-4329138
This is an automatically sent
GitHub user flowchartsman added a comment to the discussion: pulsar standalone
docker image should support initialization of some kind
My suggestion would be something like the following:
1) before spinning up the admin endpoint, look for a file in a known location
(following mongo's example,
GitHub user flowchartsman created a discussion: pulsar standalone docker image
should support initialization of some kind
This would be very useful for development and integration testing. Currently
have to run a parallel container calling `pulsar-admin` in a loop to wait on
the relevant endp
GitHub user tisonkun added a comment to the discussion: pulsar standalone
docker image should support initialization of some kind
Moved to the General Discussions forum. I like the idea but it requires a
design and volunteers working on it. Discussions forum is sorted default by
updated and g
GitHub user tisonkun edited a comment on the discussion: pulsar standalone
docker image should support initialization of some kind
Moved to the General Discussions forum. I like the idea but it requires a
design (PIP) and volunteers working on it. Discussions forum is sorted default
by update
Hi Mattison
What's the status of "moving this feature to another project"
Is it better to finish it first, and then remove this from the main repo?
Thanks,
Haiting
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 6:37 PM wrote:
>
>
> Hello, everyone.
>
> I'd like to start the discussion about `Remove restful producer co
GitHub user toneill818 created a discussion: Store Docker Images in AWS ECR
Public
**Is your enhancement request related to a problem? Please describe.**
DockerHub has aggressive rate limits now and impacts the usage when running
Apache Pulsar on Kubernetes, if the rate limit is reached.
**D
GitHub user hpvd added a comment to the discussion: Store Docker Images in AWS
ECR Public
To make it available from as many places as possible, is also a way to make
pulsar even more visible (Marketing) and grow the community and adoption :-)
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/di
GitHub user jeffgrunewald created a discussion: Websocket API should support
cumulative acknowledgement
**Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.**
In order to support feature parity with other clients, the WebSocket should
also be able to cumulatively acknowledge messag
GitHub user zuquan-song added a comment to the discussion: Websocket API should
support cumulative acknowledgement
Does it like the TCP delayed acknowledgement?
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18783#discussioncomment-4329220
This is an automatically sent email
GitHub user jeffgrunewald added a comment to the discussion: Websocket API
should support cumulative acknowledgement
> Does it like the TCP delayed acknowledgement?
I’m not sure how to accomplish that; can you give me an example of triggering a
delayed ack of a block of messages that I could
GitHub user zuquan-song added a comment to the discussion: Websocket API should
support cumulative acknowledgement
Just forget it. I think I misunderstood the meaning of the feature. But now I
know what you mean.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18783#discussioncomme
GitHub user jeffgrunewald added a comment to the discussion: Websocket API
should support cumulative acknowledgement
Thanks for clarifying. I am attempting to build and run pulsar locally for
development mode but I receive a 404 whenever attempting to connect to the
websocket to create a prod
GitHub user jiazhai added a comment to the discussion: Websocket API should
support cumulative acknowledgement
@jeffgrunewald , Do you mean, you are running `bin/pulsar standalone` locally,
but websocket client not able to connect? Since you are running success by
docker, this localrun may r
GitHub user jeffgrunewald added a comment to the discussion: Websocket API
should support cumulative acknowledgement
Your assumption is correct, but adding that didn't seem to produce any
different behavior. I also tried the same with `bin/pulsar standalone -a
localhost` because I believe Mac
GitHub user jeffgrunewald added a comment to the discussion: Websocket API
should support cumulative acknowledgement
For further context, I am writing a pulsar client library for the Elixir
language based on the websocket api. My producer and consumer is connecting to
the endpoint `ws://local
GitHub user hpvd added a comment to the discussion: Websocket API should
support cumulative acknowledgement
just as crosslink to an other websocket performance relevant issue:
WebSocket broker: url (path and query) args (namespace, topic, etc...) exposed
through message fields:
https://github.
GitHub user jiazhai added a comment to the discussion: Websocket API should
support cumulative acknowledgement
Thanks @jeffgrunewald for your feed back. Since the 404 error is not too
related to the initial issue, I opened a new issue #5997, we could discuss it
in 5997?
GitHub link:
https:
GitHub user hpvd added a comment to the discussion: Websocket API should
support cumulative acknowledgement
@sijie this one likes to have the "component/websocket" label
edit: upps just saw the pull request https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/6680
already have.
GitHub link:
https://github
GitHub user codelipenghui created a discussion: [Refactor] Introduce Policy
Resolver
**Is your enhancement request related to a problem? Please describe.**
In Pulsar, there are multiple level policies such as topic level policy,
namespace level policy, broker level policy. Therefore we have to
GitHub user devinbost created a discussion: [docs] Log4j configuration needs to
be better documented
We currently don't have much documentation around how to configure Log4j
debugging for Pulsar, and the log4j docs are confusing. For example, I'm trying
to enable DEBUG logging for Pulsar, but
GitHub user devinbost added a comment to the discussion: [docs] Log4j
configuration needs to be better documented
For example, the following Log4j file doesn't emit debug statements for permits
from `ConsumerImpl`, `Consumer`, or `PersistentDispatcherMultipleConsumers`
[log4j2.yaml.txt](https
GitHub user codelipenghui added a comment to the discussion: [docs] Log4j
configuration needs to be better documented
The issue had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18785#discussioncomment-4329243
This is an automa
GitHub user devinbost added a comment to the discussion: [docs] Log4j
configuration needs to be better documented
I was able to get debug statements after hard coding `"debug"` in place of
`"${sys:pulsar.log.level}"` in this part of the log4j2.yaml file:
```
Root:
level: debug
addi
GitHub user frank-montyne created a discussion: Gson support
**Is your enhancement request related to a problem? Please describe.**
In our projects we are using Gson not Jackson for Json
serialization/deserialization. On top of that we make use of immutables
(immutables.org) to define our data
GitHub user frank-montyne added a comment to the discussion: Gson support
I completely agree. Another problem is the current reliance on getter/setter
method to determine the properties of the POJO. Immutables (immutables.org)
work with builders instead of setter methods and by default the get
GitHub user codelipenghui added a comment to the discussion: Gson support
The issue had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18786#discussioncomment-4329256
This is an automatically sent email for dev@pulsar.apache.org.
GitHub user gmethvin added a comment to the discussion: Gson support
I don't think this issue is so much about Gson support as it is about making it
easy to generate schemas via other means, using other libraries. We've had
similar challenges with pulsar4s and generating JSON schemas to suppor
GitHub user disserakt created a discussion: Add the ability to transform an
existing non-partitioned to a partitioned topic without deleting it.
**Context:**
At the moment we cannot change the topic type from non-partitioned to
partitioned for topics that already exist and contain data. Such t
GitHub user codelipenghui added a comment to the discussion: Add the ability to
transform an existing non-partitioned to a partitioned topic without deleting
it.
The issue had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18787#disc
GitHub user danielorf created a discussion: [OAuth 2.0] Expand OAuth 2.0 flow
and token retrieval options
**Is your enhancement request related to a problem? Please describe.**
Pulsar's OAuth 2.0 flow currently only supports the
[OIDC](https://ldapwiki.com/wiki/Openid-configuration)
[well-kno
GitHub user danielorf added a comment to the discussion: [OAuth 2.0] Expand
OAuth 2.0 flow and token retrieval options
I realize that the paragraph about the token public key (under *Additional
consideration* section) may be out of scope and require its own issue. If so,
I'll break it out an
GitHub user codelipenghui added a comment to the discussion: [OAuth 2.0] Expand
OAuth 2.0 flow and token retrieval options
The issue had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18788#discussioncomment-4329311
This is an a
Hi, All
Recently, I realised we don't have any rules for breaking pulsar broker public
API. [1]
Since pulsar has extended abilities like protocol handler, additional servlet,
interceptor etc., many libraries rely on broker public API.
I'm not sure if we've got to ensure compatibility for this.
Hi mattison
Could you please share more details about how the change breaks the broker
public API?
It will help us to understand the compatibility issue.
Thanks,
Penghui
> On Dec 7, 2022, at 12:39, mattisonc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi, All
>
> Recently, I realised we don't have any rules for
GitHub user flowchartsman added a comment to the discussion: pulsar standalone
docker image should support initialization of some kind
> shall we support run bin/pulsar ... also?
Not for the use-case I had in mind, which was for pulsar, specifically in
standalone mode. Actually, even more spe
Hi Zixuan,
If it only affects standalone. I think it’s ok.
For standalone, multiple bundles help nothing, right?
No rebalance will happen for a standalone.
Thanks,
Penghui
> On Dec 7, 2022, at 11:23, Yunze Xu wrote:
>
> The change of a default value is acceptable in a major release. But
> sinc
Hi-
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 6, 2022, at 8:40 PM, mattisonc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hi, All
>
> Recently, I realised we don't have any rules for breaking pulsar broker
> public API. [1]
While I agree with you that we need to be transparent about changing APIs you
mention a specific PR.
GitHub user kinbod added a comment to the discussion: hot&cool data strategy
> data retention
size&time based date retention will truncate the data, sometimes I need expand
the search scope witch will includ some epired data, but I won't get it back
agine, doesn't it ??
GitHub link:
https:/
GitHub user codelipenghui added a comment to the discussion: hot&cool data
strategy
@kinbod Apache Pulsar supports size-based and time-based data retention, does
this works for you?
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18789#discussioncomment-4329393
This is an aut
GitHub user github-actions[bot] added a comment to the discussion: hot&cool
data strategy
The issue had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18789#discussioncomment-4329395
This is an automatically sent email for dev@p
GitHub user umialpha created a discussion: What will happen if pulsar-proxy
crashes.
Hi, I want some clarification about the crash of pulsar-proxy.
Will the messages that unacknowledged be redelivered immediately?( e.g. shared
subscription).
If the answer is yes. I think it needs to be clar
GitHub user jiazhai added a comment to the discussion: What will happen if
pulsar-proxy crashes.
hi @umialpha The behavior "when different consumers get the same message
without any client's disconnection" is not related with proxy. it seems the
default behavior for shared-sub. the unacked m
> Could you please share more details about how the change breaks the broker
> public API?
For example, this PR[1] change the public API from non-argument to one
argument. It will cause other libraries also change for it.
I'm not sure that ensuring the compatibility of method signatures is
wor
> It would help me understand if you would explain how apis were changed in
> this PR
Sorry, I explained above. it's a small break, maybe it just breaks some unit
test mock, but it can be used as an example.
> We should be sure to track and then highlight API changes in release
> documents.
> A
> If it only affects standalone. I think it’s ok.
Right.
> For standalone, multiple bundles help nothing, right?
I'm wondering whether affecting the resource quota. Could you confirm that?
Thanks,
Zixuan
PengHui Li 于2022年12月7日周三 12:53写道：
> Hi Zixuan,
>
> If it only affects standalone. I thin
I'm afraid it's very hard to avoid these API changes. Take the
protocol handler as example, it could make use of nearly all modules
via the `PulsarService` object. The cost to keep the compatibility
might be high so that much legacy code could be left. For example,
each time a new argument is added
Hi Haiting
> Is it better to finish it first, and then remove this from the main repo?
I think we can remove it first because it is not a complete feature. Anyone
interested in working on it can find the code from the git history and migrate
it to another repo.
Ps: it looks like the current impl
Hi Penghui,
> But maybe some are missed.
That's the point. Each PR that adds or modifies a metric item must be
labeled with "doc-required" and the related documents should be added.
However, these PRs are nearly all labeled with "doc-not-needed".
I agree a proposal would be better before adding
> I'm afraid it's very hard to avoid these API changes. Take theprotocol
> handler as example, it could make use of nearly all modulesvia the
> `PulsarService` object. The cost to keep the compatibilitymight be high so
> that much legacy code could be left. For example,each time a new argument i
Hi Baodi,
I decided not to change the behavior of the `negativeAcknowledge`
method. I just checked again that there is no exception signature for
this method and there is no asynchronous version like
`negativeAcknowledgeAsync`. To keep the API compatible, we should not
add an exception signature,
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 6, 2022, at 9:45 PM, Yunze Xu wrote:
>
> Hi Penghui,
>
>> But maybe some are missed.
>
> That's the point. Each PR that adds or modifies a metric item must be
> labeled with "doc-required" and the related documents should be added.
> However, these PRs are near
> I think we can remove it first because it is not a complete feature. Anyone
> interested in working on it can find the code from the git history and
> migrate it to another repo.
Looks like it's not a complete implementation of PIP-64, but the REST
producer part seems to be working.
And some u
101 - 172 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
