All clear, Thank you.
I guess an example will be available when the version is released....
Shlomi
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Jun Rao <jun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. The new producer takes only the new producer configs.
>
> 2. There is no longer a pluggable partitioner. By default, if a key is
> provided, the producer hashes the bytes to get the partition. There is an
> interface for the client to explicitly specify a partition, if it wants to.
>
> 3. Currently, the new producer only takes bytes. We are discussing now if
> we want to make it take generic types like the old producer.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jun
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Shlomi Hazan <shl...@viber.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > Started to dig into that new producer and have a few questions:
> > 1. what part (if any) of the old producer config still apply to the new
> > producer or is it just what is specified on "New Producer Configs"?
> > 2. how do you specify a partitioner to the new producer? if no such
> option,
> > what usage is made with the given key? is it simply hashed with Java's
> > String API?
> > 3. the javadoc example (
> >
> > ProducerRecord record = new ProducerRecord("the-topic", "key, "value");
> >
> > ) is incorrect and shows as if creating a producer record takes 3 strings
> > whereas it takes byte arrays for the last two arguments. will the final
> API
> > be the one documented or rather the one implemented?
> >
> > I am really missing a working example for the new producer so if anyone
> has
> > one I will be happy to get inspired...
> > Shlomi
> >
>
