We should be able to get this in after 0.8.1 and probably before the client rewrite.
Thanks, Joel On Wednesday, October 16, 2013, Jason Rosenberg wrote: > This looks great. What is the time frame for this effort? > > Jason > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Btw, after we complete KAFKA-1000 (offset management in Kafka) it > > should be reasonable to commit offsets on every message as long as the > > optional metadata portion of the offset commit request is small/empty. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Joel > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Jason Rosenberg <j...@squareup.com> > > wrote: > > > That would be great. Additionally, in the new api, it would be awesome > > > augment the default auto-commit functionality to allow client code to > > mark > > > a message for commit only after processing a message successfully! > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> For manual offset commits, it will be useful to have some kind of API > > that > > >> informs the client when a rebalance is going to happen. We can think > > about > > >> this when we do the client rewrite. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Jun > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Jason Rosenberg <j...@squareup.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Jun, > > >> > > > >> > Yes, sorry, I think that was the basis for my question. When auto > > >> commit > > >> > is enabled, special care is taken to make sure things are > > auto-committed > > >> > during a rebalance. This is needed because when a topic moves off > of > > a > > >> > consumer thread (since it is being rebalanced to another one), it's > > as if > > >> > that topic is being shutdown on that connector, and any > > not-yet-committed > > >> > messages need to be committed before letting go of the topic. > > >> > > > >> > So, my question is around trying to understand if there's a way I > can > > >> > reproduce similar functionality using my own sync auto commit > > >> > implementation (and I'm not sure there is). It seems that when > > there's a > > >> > rebalance, all processed but not-yet-committed offsets will not be > > >> > committed, and thus there will be no way to prevent pretty massive > > >> > duplicate consumption on a rebalance. Is that about right? Or is > > there > > >> > someway around this that I'm not seeing? > > >> > > > >> > The auto-commit functionality that's builtin is so close to being > all > > >> that > > >> > anyone would need, except it has a glaring weakness, in that it will > > >> cause > > >> > messages to be lost from time to time, and so I don't know that it > > will > > >> > meet the needs of trying to have reliable delivery (with duplicates > > ok). > > >> > > > >> > Jason > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > If auto commit is disabled, the consumer connector won't call > > >> > commitOffsets > > >> > > during rebalancing. > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > >> > > Jun > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Jason Rosenberg < > j...@squareup.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > I'm looking at implementing a synchronous auto offset commit > > >> solution. > > >> > > > People have discussed the need for this in previous > > >> > > > threads......Basically, in my consumer loop, I want to make > sure a > > >> > > message > > >> > > > has been actually processed before allowing it's offset to be > > >> > committed. > > >> > > > But I d -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
