Oh, yes, I guess I thought you meant that construction of the client would block on the metadata request.
I don't personally think that is a problem because if it fails it will retry in the background, right? But actually I think this is probably violating another desirable criteria we had talked about which was keeping the producer from bootstrapping the full metadata for all partitions. If it is doing that during construction time presumably the resulting metadata request is for all partitions, no? That isn't a huge problem, but I think isn't what was intended. -Jay On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > It will set the needUpdate flag to true and hence the background Sender > will try to talk to the bootstrap servers. > > Guozhang > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey Guozhang, > > > > That line shouldn't cause any connections to Kafka to be established, > does > > it? All that is doing is creating the Cluster pojo using the supplied > > addresses. The use of InetSocketAddress may cause some dns stuff to > happen, > > though... > > > > -Jay > > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I am not sure if we have discussed about this before, but recently I > > > realized that we have introduced boot dependency of the kafka-server > > > specified by the "bootstrap.servers" config in the new producer. More > > > specifically, although in the old producer we also have a similar > config > > > for specifying the broker list, the producer will not try to connect to > > > those brokers until the first message send call is triggered; whereas > in > > > the new producer, it will try to talk to them in construction time via: > > > > > > update(Cluster.bootstrap(addresses), time.milliseconds()); > > > > > > > > > I personally am neutral to this change, as in most cases the > > corresponding > > > kafka server should be up and running before the producer clients are > > > deployed, but there are still some corner cases when it is not true, > for > > > example some standalone deployment tests of the app embedded with some > > > clients, etc. So I would like to bring this up to people's attention if > > we > > > have not discussed about it before: do we think this is OK to introduce > > > this boot dependency in the new producer? > > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang >
