Hi,

Thanks for the follow up.

By "classic" I meant the protocol implemented by the SyncGroup/JoinGroup
API [1]. It's a general group protocol that is still fully supported in
Kraft, and at this time has no intention of being deprecated.
It's called "classic" to distinguish it from the newer KIP-848 [2]
ConsumerGroupHeartbeat API and the share group protocol used in KIP-932
[3]. It is my understanding that these other protocols are _not_ a
synchronizing barrier in the same way the "classic" protocol is.

Hope this helps,
Greg

[1]
https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/adb033211497e539725366960e1013a4638de59f/group-coordinator/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/coordinator/group/classic/ClassicGroup.java
[2]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-848%3A+The+Next+Generation+of+the+Consumer+Rebalance+Protocol
[3]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-932%3A+Queues+for+Kafka

On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 4:41 PM Chain Head <mrchainh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks.
>
> By "classic" you mean pre-KRaft consensus? What is the "current" Kafka
> Group protocol?
>
> Best regards.
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 9:55 PM Greg Harris <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Yes you are correct. The "classic" Kafka Group Protocol is a
> synchronizing
> > barrier for all members.
> > All JoinGroup member responses are returned after all JoinGroup member
> > requests are received.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Greg
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 7:10 AM Chain Head <mrchainh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Assume that three consumers of a certain group want to connect to a
> > broker
> > > for a topic with 3 partitions. After the FindCoordinator API is done,
> the
> > > consumers send JoinGroup. Since the broker cannot know in advance how
> > many
> > > consumers are expected to join, it waits
> > group.initial.rebalance.delay.ms
> > > before starting a rebalance.
> > >
> > > Therefore, does this mean the JoinGroup API response of each request is
> > > "held" until the waiting period is over?
> > >
> > > Best regards.
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to