Hi ** Disclaimer: I know there's a new consumer API on the way, this mail is about the currently available API. I also apologise if the below has already been discussed previously. I did try to check previous discussions on ConsumerIterator **
It seems to me that the high-level consumer would be able to support at-least-once messaging, even if one uses auto-commit, by changing kafka.consumer.ConsumerIterator.next() to call currentTopicInfo.resetConsumeOffset(..) _before_ super.next(). This way, a consumer thread for a KafkaStream could just loop: while (true) { MyMessage message = iterator.next().message(); process(message); } Each call to "iterator.next()" then updates the offset to commit to the end of the message that was just processed. When offsets are committed for the ConsumerConnector (either automatically or manually), the commit will not include offsets of messages that haven't been fully processed. I've tested the following ConsumerIterator.next(), and it seems to work as I expect: override def next(): MessageAndMetadata[K, V] = { // New code: reset consumer offset to the end of the previously consumed message: if (consumedOffset > -1L && currentTopicInfo != null) { currentTopicInfo.resetConsumeOffset(consumedOffset) val topic = currentTopicInfo.topic trace("Setting %s consumed offset to %d".format(topic, consumedOffset)) } // Old code, excluding reset: val item = super.next() if(consumedOffset < 0) throw new KafkaException("Offset returned by the message set is invalid %d".format(consumedOffset)) val topic = currentTopicInfo.topic consumerTopicStats.getConsumerTopicStats(topic).messageRate.mark() consumerTopicStats.getConsumerAllTopicStats().messageRate.mark() item } I've seen several people asking about managing commit offsets manually with the high level consumer. I suspect that this approach (the modified ConsumerIterator) would scale better than having a separate ConsumerConnecter per stream just so that you can commit offsets with at-least-once semantics. The downside of this approach is more duplicate deliveries after recovery from hard failure (but this is "at least once", right, not "exactly once"). I don't propose that the code necessarily be changed like this in trunk, I just want to know if the approach seems reasonable. Regards Carl Heymann