Hi,
I'd like to start a discussion to review Pulsar broker features we have
developed and work on a feature matrix (with maturity) for them.
The proposal would contain links and tables, which is better to read with
its rendered version. Thus, I created a discussion topic[1] for its content
and cc
+1 (non-binding)
- Verified signature and checksums
- Install the nupkg file
- Build the client from the source
- Run examples
But I find that the dotpulsar 3.0.0 has already been published to the
nuget.org: https://www.nuget.org/packages/DotPulsar/3.0.0
BR,
Zike Yang
On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 11:
Hi Pulsar Community,
This is the discussion thread for PIP
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/21129.
This PIP is going to refactor the code and introduce LoadBalanceResources
to unify the load-date CRUD
Thanks,
houxiaoyu
Hi Pulsar Community,
Discuss for PIP-300: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/21127
Thanks,
Zixuan
Hi dev,
It has been open for a month now. Could we have some votes here?
Thanks,
Heesung
On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 11:55 AM Heesung Sohn
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to start a vote thread for the PIP-281.
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20748
>
> Discussion :
> https://lists.apache.org/thre
There has certainly been a lot of discussion on the pip and also the email
thread. It was a substantive debate about potential protocol changes. The
result doesn’t look conclusive.
Where did you land regarding Michael’s ideas?
Best,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 5, 2023, at 11:56 AM, Hees
In my last comment, I proposed a follow-up PIP if we want to add the
"prepare" command(Michael’s idea) on top of this PIP.
I have been waiting to hear from him since then.
I think we can start with an "arguably" simple optimization first with
minimal changes(which is what this PIP proposes).
Thank
--
Matteo Merli
On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:56 PM Michael Marshall
wrote:
> Thanks for your proposal, Heesung. Sorry for my late response. Just
> want to make a few points to hopefully improve the implementation.
> Overall, I think this feature is absolutely the right direction for
> Pulsar and w
+1 (binding)
--
Matteo Merli
On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 11:55 AM Heesung Sohn
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to start a vote thread for the PIP-281.
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20748
>
> Discussion :
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/bdmx4qhn6hkoxm0xbtf67tq4kt5r8jmy
>
> Best,
> Heesung
>
> In my last comment, I proposed a follow-up PIP if we want to add the
> "prepare" command(Michael’s idea) on top of this PIP.
> I have been waiting to hear from him since then.
Out of curiosity, where was your proposal? If it was on the PIP PR, I
already replied here:
https://github.com/apache/pu
Hi Pulsar Community,
I’d like to start a discussion about whether replacing the customize util class
like ConcurrentOpenHashMap with ConcurrentHashMap, as the performance of
ConcurrentHashMap is better than those customize util significantly.
Worse, these customize util class cannot ensure cons
Yes, this was my last comment in the PIP.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20748#discussion_r1300733232
I saw your comment,
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20748#discussion_r1303801386.
I am sorry. I probably didn't make it clear.
I thought you would leave more comments to conclude the
On 2023/09/06 04:22:58 QQ wrote:
> Hi Pulsar Community,
>
> I’d like to start a discussion about whether replacing the customize util
> class like ConcurrentOpenHashMap with ConcurrentHashMap, as the performance
> of ConcurrentHashMap is better than those customize util significantly.
> Worse
13 matches
Mail list logo
