Hi Alieh, I was out for KSB and then was also sick. :(
To your point 1) Chris, I don't think it is limited to two specific scenarios, since the interface accepts a generic Exception e and can be implemented to check if that e is an instanceof any exception. I didn't see anywhere that specific errors are enforced. I'm a bit concerned about this actually. I'm concerned about the opened-endedness and the contract we have with transactions. We are allowing the client to make decisions that are somewhat invisible to the server. As an aside, can we build in log messages when the handler decides to skip etc a message. I'm really concerned about messages being silently dropped. I do think Chris's point 2) about retriable vs non retriable errors is fair. I'm a bit concerned about skipping a unknown topic or partition exception too early, as there are cases where it can be transient. I'm still a little bit wary of allowing dropping records as part of EOS generally as in many cases, these errors signify an issue with the original data. I understand that streams and connect/mirror maker may have reasons they want to progress past these messages, but wondering if there is a way that can be done application-side. I'm willing to accept this sort of proposal if we can make it clear that this sort of thing is happening and we limit the blast radius for what we can do. Justine On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 9:55 AM Chris Egerton <chr...@aiven.io.invalid> wrote: > Hi Alieh, > > Sorry for the delay, I've been out sick. I still have some thoughts that > I'd like to see addressed before voting. > > 1) If flexibility is the motivation for a pluggable interface, why are we > only limiting the uses for this interface to two very specific scenarios? > Why not also allow, e.g., authorization errors to be handled as well > (allowing users to drop records destined for some off-limits topics, or > retry for a limited duration in case there's a delay in the propagation of > ACL updates)? It'd be nice to see some analysis of other errors that could > be handled with this new API, both to avoid the follow-up work of another > KIP to address them in the future, and to make sure that we're not painting > ourselves into a corner with the current API in a way that would make > future modifications difficult. > > 2) Something feels a bit off with how retriable vs. non-retriable errors > are handled with the interface. Why not introduce two separate methods to > handle each case separately? That way there's no ambiguity or implicit > behavior when, e.g., attempting to retry on a RecordTooLargeException. This > could be something like `NonRetriableResponse handle(ProducerRecord, > Exception)` and `RetriableResponse handleRetriable(ProducerRecord, > Exception)`, though the exact names and shape can obviously be toyed with a > bit. > > 3) Although the flexibility of a pluggable interface may benefit some > users' custom producer applications and Kafka Streams applications, it > comes at significant deployment cost for other low-/no-code environments, > including but not limited to Kafka Connect and MirrorMaker 2. Can we add a > default implementation of the exception handler that allows for some simple > behavior to be tweaked via configuration property? Two things that would be > nice to have would be A) an upper bound on the retry time for > unknown-topic-partition exceptions and B) an option to drop records that > are large enough to trigger a record-too-large exception. > > 4) I'd still prefer to see "SKIP" or "DROP" instead of the proposed > "SWALLOW" option, which IMO is opaque and non-obvious, especially when > trying to guess the behavior for retriable errors. > > Cheers, > > Chris > > On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 11:23 AM Alieh Saeedi <asae...@confluent.io.invalid > > > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > A summary of the KIP and the discussions: > > > > > > The KIP introduces a handler interface for Producer in order to handle > two > > exceptions: RecordTooLargeException and UnknownTopicOrPartitionException. > > The handler handles the exceptions per-record. > > > > > > - Do we need this handler? [Motivation and Examples sections] > > > > > > RecordTooLargeException: 1) In transactions, the producer collects > multiple > > records in batches. Then a RecordTooLargeException related to a single > > record leads to failing the entire batch. A custom exception handler in > > this case may decide on dropping the record and continuing the > processing. > > See Example 1, please. 2) More over, in Kafka Streams, a record that is > too > > large is a poison pill record, and there is no way to skip over it. A > > handler would allow us to react to this error inside the producer, i.e., > > local to where the error happens, and thus simplify the overall code > > significantly. Please read the Motivation section for more explanation. > > > > > > UnknownTopicOrPartitionException: For this case, the producer handles > this > > exception internally and only issues a WARN log about missing metadata > and > > retries internally. Later, when the producer hits "deliver.timeout.ms" > it > > throws a TimeoutException, and the user can only blindly retry, which may > > result in an infinite retry loop. The thrown TimeoutException "cuts" the > > connection to the underlying root cause of missing metadata (which could > > indeed be a transient error but is persistent for a non-existing topic). > > Thus, there is no programmatic way to break the infinite retry loop. > Kafka > > Streams also blindly retries for this case, and the application gets > stuck. > > > > > > > > - Having interface vs configuration option: [Motivation, Examples, and > > Rejected Alternatives sections] > > > > Our solution is introducing an interface due to the full flexibility that > > it offers. Sometimes users, especially Kafka Streams ones, determine the > > handler's behaviour based on the situation. For example, f > > acing UnknownTopicOrPartitionException*, *the user may want to raise an > > error for some topics but retry it for other topics. Having a > configuration > > option with a fixed set of possibilities does not serve the user's > > needs. See Example 2, please. > > > > > > - Note on RecordTooLargeException: [Public Interfaces section] > > > > If the custom handler decides on SWALLOW for RecordTooLargeException, > then > > this record will not be a part of the batch of transactions and will also > > not be sent to the broker in non-transactional mode. So no worries about > > getting a RecordTooLargeException from the broker in this case, as the > > record will never ever be sent to the broker. SWALLOW means drop the > record > > and continue/swallow the error. > > > > > > - What if the handle() method implements RETRY for > RecordTooLargeException? > > [Proposed Changes section] > > > > We have to limit the user to only have FAIL or SWALLOW for > > RecordTooLargeException. Actually, RETRY must be equal to FAIL. This is > > well documented/informed in javadoc. > > > > > > > > - What if the handle() method of the handler throws an exception? > > > > The handler is expected to have correct code. If it throws an exception, > > everything fails. > > > > > > > > This is a PoC PR <https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/15846> ONLY for > > RecordTooLargeException. The code changes related to > > UnknownTopicOrPartitionException will be added to this PR LATER. > > > > > > Looking forward to your feedback again. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Alieh > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 11:46 PM Kirk True <k...@kirktrue.pro> wrote: > > > > > Hi Alieh, > > > > > > Thanks for the updates! > > > > > > Comments inline... > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 25, 2024, at 1:10 PM, Alieh Saeedi > <asae...@confluent.io.INVALID > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the constructive feedbacks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing some of the main concerns: > > > > > > > > > > > > - The `RecordTooLargeException` can be thrown by broker, producer and > > > > consumer. Of course, the `ProducerExceptionHandler` interface is > > > introduced > > > > to affect only the exceptions thrown from the producer. This KIP very > > > > specifically means to provide a possibility to manage the > > > > `RecordTooLargeException` thrown from the Producer.send() method. > > Please > > > > see “Proposed Changes” section for more clarity. I investigated the > > issue > > > > there thoroughly. I hope it can explain the concern about how we > handle > > > the > > > > errors as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - The problem with Callback: Methods of Callback are called when the > > > record > > > > sent to the server is acknowledged, while this is not the desired > time > > > for > > > > all exceptions. We intend to handle exceptions beforehand. > > > > > > I guess it makes sense to keep the expectation for when Callback is > > > invoked as-is vs. shoehorning more into it. > > > > > > > - What if the custom handler returns RETRY for > > > `RecordTooLargeException`? I > > > > assume changing the producer configuration at runtime is possible. If > > so, > > > > RETRY for a too large record is valid because maybe in the next try, > > the > > > > too large record is not poisoning any more. I am not 100% sure about > > the > > > > technical details, though. Otherwise, we can consider the RETRY as > FAIL > > > for > > > > this exception. Another solution would be to consider a constant > number > > > of > > > > times for RETRY which can be useful for other exceptions as well. > > > > > > It’s not presently possible to change the configuration of an existing > > > Producer at runtime. So if a record hits a RecordTooLargeException > once, > > no > > > amount of retrying (with the current Producer) will change that fact. > So > > > I’m still a little stuck on how to handle a response of RETRY for an > > > “oversized” record. > > > > > > > - What if the handle() method itself throws an exception? I think > > > > rationally and pragmatically, the behaviour must be exactly like when > > no > > > > custom handler is defined since the user actually did not have a > > working > > > > handler. > > > > > > I’m not convinced that ignoring an errant handler is the right choice. > It > > > then becomes a silent failure that might have repercussions, depending > on > > > the business logic. A user would have to proactively trawls through the > > > logs for WARN/ERROR messages to catch it. > > > > > > Throwing a hard error is pretty draconian, though… > > > > > > > - Why not use config parameters instead of an interface? As explained > > in > > > > the “Rejected Alternatives” section, we assume that the handler will > be > > > > used for a greater number of exceptions in the future. Defining a > > > > configuration parameter for each exception may make the > configuration a > > > bit > > > > messy. Moreover, the handler offers more flexibility. > > > > > > Agreed that the logic-via-configuration approach is weird and limiting. > > > Forget I ever suggested it ;) > > > > > > I’d think additional background in the Motivation section would help me > > > understand how users might use this feature beyond a) skipping > > “oversized” > > > records, and b) not retrying missing topics. > > > > > > > Small change: > > > > > > > > -ProductionExceptionHandlerResponse -> Response for brevity and > > > simplicity. > > > > Could’ve been HandlerResponse too I think! > > > > > > The name change sounds good to me. > > > > > > Thanks Alieh! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thank you all again for your useful questions/suggestions. > > > > > > > > I would be happy to hear more of your concerns, as stated in some > > > feedback. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Alieh > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 12:31 AM Justine Olshan > > > > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Thanks Alieh for the updates. > > > >> > > > >> I'm a little concerned about the design pattern here. It seems like > we > > > want > > > >> specific usages, but we are packaging it as a generic handler. > > > >> I think we tried to narrow down on the specific errors we want to > > > handle, > > > >> but it feels a little clunky as we have a generic thing for two > > specific > > > >> errors. > > > >> > > > >> I'm wondering if we are using the right patterns to solve these > > > problems. I > > > >> agree though that we will need something more than the error classes > > I'm > > > >> proposing if we want to have different handling be configurable. > > > >> My concern is that the open-endedness of a handler means that we are > > > >> creating more problems than we are solving. It is still unclear to > me > > > how > > > >> we expect to handle the errors. Perhaps we could include an example? > > It > > > >> seems like there is a specific use case in mind and maybe we can > make > > a > > > >> design that is tighter and supports that case. > > > >> > > > >> Justine > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 3:06 PM Kirk True <k...@kirktrue.pro> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi Alieh, > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks for the KIP! > > > >>> > > > >>> A few questions: > > > >>> > > > >>> K1. What is the expected behavior for the producer if it generates > a > > > >>> RecordTooLargeException, but the handler returns RETRY? > > > >>> K2. How do we determine which Record was responsible for the > > > >>> UnknownTopicOrPartitionException since we get that response when > > > >> sending a > > > >>> batch of records? > > > >>> K3. What is the expected behavior if the handle() method itself > > throws > > > an > > > >>> error? > > > >>> K4. What is the downside of adding an onError() method to the > > > Producer’s > > > >>> Callback interface vs. a new mechanism? > > > >>> K5. Can we change “ProducerExceptionHandlerResponse" to just > > “Response” > > > >>> given that it’s an inner enum? > > > >>> K6. Any recommendation for callback authors to handle different > > > behavior > > > >>> for different topics? > > > >>> > > > >>> I’ll echo what others have said, it would help me understand why we > > > want > > > >>> another handler class if there were more examples in the Motivation > > > >>> section. As it stands now, I agree with Chris that the stated > issues > > > >> could > > > >>> be solved by adding two new configuration options: > > > >>> > > > >>> oversized.record.behavior=fail > > > >>> retry.on.unknown.topic.or.partition=true > > > >>> > > > >>> What I’m not yet able to wrap my head around is: what exactly would > > the > > > >>> logic in the handler be? I’m not very imaginative, so I’m assuming > > > they’d > > > >>> mostly be if-this-then-that. However, if they’re more complicated, > > I’d > > > >> have > > > >>> other concerns. > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> Kirk > > > >>> > > > >>>> On Apr 22, 2024, at 7:38 AM, Alieh Saeedi > > > <asae...@confluent.io.INVALID > > > >>> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thank you all for the feedback! > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Addressing the main concern: The KIP is about giving the user the > > > >> ability > > > >>>> to handle producer exceptions, but to be more conservative and > avoid > > > >>> future > > > >>>> issues, we decided to be limited to a short list of exceptions. I > > > >>> included > > > >>>> *RecordTooLargeExceptin* and *UnknownTopicOrPartitionException. > > *Open > > > >> to > > > >>>> suggestion for adding some more ;-) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> KIP Updates: > > > >>>> - clarified the way that the user should configure the Producer to > > use > > > >>> the > > > >>>> custom handler. I think adding a producer config property is the > > > >> cleanest > > > >>>> one. > > > >>>> - changed the *ClientExceptionHandler* to > *ProducerExceptionHandler* > > > to > > > >>> be > > > >>>> closer to what we are changing. > > > >>>> - added the ProducerRecord as the input parameter of the handle() > > > >> method > > > >>> as > > > >>>> well. > > > >>>> - increased the response types to 3 to have fail and two types of > > > >>> continue. > > > >>>> - The default behaviour is having no custom handler, having the > > > >>>> corresponding config parameter set to null. Therefore, the KIP > > > provides > > > >>> no > > > >>>> default implementation of the interface. > > > >>>> - We follow the interface solution as described in the > > > >>>> Rejected Alternetives section. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Cheers, > > > >>>> Alieh > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 8:11 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Thanks for the KIP Alieh! It addresses an important case for > error > > > >>>>> handling. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I agree that using this handler would be an expert API, as > > mentioned > > > >> by > > > >>>>> a few people. But I don't think it would be a reason to not add > it. > > > >> It's > > > >>>>> always a tricky tradeoff what to expose to users and to avoid > foot > > > >> guns, > > > >>>>> but we added similar handlers to Kafka Streams, and have good > > > >> experience > > > >>>>> with it. Hence, I understand, but don't share the concern raised. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I also agree that there is some responsibility by the user to > > > >> understand > > > >>>>> how such a handler should be implemented to not drop data by > > > accident. > > > >>>>> But it seem unavoidable and acceptable. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> While I understand that a "simpler / reduced" API (eg via > configs) > > > >> might > > > >>>>> also work, I personally prefer a full handler. Configs have the > > same > > > >>>>> issue that they could be miss-used potentially leading to > > incorrectly > > > >>>>> dropped data, but at the same time are less flexible (and thus > > maybe > > > >>>>> ever harder to use correctly...?). Base on my experience, there > is > > > >> also > > > >>>>> often weird corner case for which it make sense to also drop > > records > > > >> for > > > >>>>> other exceptions, and a full handler has the advantage of full > > > >>>>> flexibility and "absolute power!". > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> To be fair: I don't know the exact code paths of the producer in > > > >>>>> details, so please keep me honest. But my understanding is, that > > the > > > >> KIP > > > >>>>> aims to allow users to react to internal exception, and decide to > > > keep > > > >>>>> retrying internally, swallow the error and drop the record, or > > raise > > > >> the > > > >>>>> error? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Maybe the KIP would need to be a little bit more precises what > > error > > > >> we > > > >>>>> want to cover -- I don't think this list must be exhaustive, as > we > > > can > > > >>>>> always do follow up KIP to also apply the handler to other errors > > to > > > >>>>> expand the scope of the handler. The KIP does mention examples, > but > > > it > > > >>>>> might be good to explicitly state for what cases the handler gets > > > >>> applied? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I am also not sure if CONTINUE and FAIL are enough options? Don't > > we > > > >>>>> need three options? Or would `CONTINUE` have different meaning > > > >> depending > > > >>>>> on the type of error? Ie, for a retryable error `CONTINUE` would > > mean > > > >>>>> keep retrying internally, but for a non-retryable error > `CONTINUE` > > > >> means > > > >>>>> swallow the error and drop the record? This semantic overload > seems > > > >>>>> tricky to reason about by users, so it might better to split > > > >> `CONTINUE` > > > >>>>> into two cases -> `RETRY` and `SWALLOW` (or some better names). > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Additionally, should we just ship a > `DefaultClientExceptionHandler` > > > >>>>> which would return `FAIL`, for backward compatibility. Or don't > > have > > > >> any > > > >>>>> default handler to begin with and allow it to be `null`? I don't > > see > > > >> the > > > >>>>> need for a specific `TransactionExceptionHandler`. To me, the > goal > > > >>>>> should be to not modify the default behavior at all, but to just > > > allow > > > >>>>> users to change the default behavior if there is a need. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> What is missing on the KIP though it, how the handler is passed > > into > > > >> the > > > >>>>> producer thought? Would we need a new config which allows to set > a > > > >>>>> custom handler? And/or would we allow to pass in an instance via > > the > > > >>>>> constructor or add a new method to set a handler? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> -Matthias > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On 4/18/24 10:02 AM, Andrew Schofield wrote: > > > >>>>>> Hi Alieh, > > > >>>>>> Thanks for the KIP. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Exception handling in the Kafka producer and consumer is really > > not > > > >>>>> ideal. > > > >>>>>> It’s even harder working out what’s going on with the consumer. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I’m a bit nervous about this KIP and I agree with Chris that it > > > could > > > >>> do > > > >>>>> with additional > > > >>>>>> motivation. This would be an expert-level interface given how > > > >>> complicated > > > >>>>>> the exception handling for Kafka has become. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 7. The application is not really aware of the batching being > done > > on > > > >>> its > > > >>>>> behalf. > > > >>>>>> The ProduceResponse can actually return an array of records > which > > > >>> failed > > > >>>>>> per batch. If you get RecordTooLargeException, and want to > retry, > > > you > > > >>>>> probably > > > >>>>>> need to remove the offending records from the batch and retry > it. > > > >> This > > > >>>>> is getting fiddly. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 8. There is already o.a.k.clients.producer.Callback. I wonder > > > whether > > > >>> an > > > >>>>>> alternative might be to add a method to the existing Callback > > > >>> interface, > > > >>>>> such as: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> ClientExceptionResponse onException(Exception exception) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> It would be called when a ProduceResponse contains an error, but > > the > > > >>>>>> producer is going to retry. It tells the producer whether to go > > > ahead > > > >>>>> with the retry > > > >>>>>> or not. The default implementation would be to CONTINUE, because > > > >> that’s > > > >>>>>> just continuing to retry as planned. Note that this is a > > per-record > > > >>>>> callback, so > > > >>>>>> the application would be able to understand which records > failed. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> By using an existing interface, we already know how to configure > > it > > > >> and > > > >>>>> we know > > > >>>>>> about the threading model for calling it. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>> Andrew > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On 17 Apr 2024, at 18:17, Chris Egerton > <chr...@aiven.io.INVALID > > > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Hi Alieh, > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP! The issue with writing to non-existent > topics > > > is > > > >>>>>>> particularly frustrating for users of Kafka Connect and has > been > > > the > > > >>>>> source > > > >>>>>>> of a handful of Jira tickets over the years. My thoughts: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 1. An additional detail we can add to the motivation (or > possibly > > > >>>>> rejected > > > >>>>>>> alternatives) section is that this kind of custom retry logic > > can't > > > >> be > > > >>>>>>> implemented by hand by, e.g., setting retries to 0 in the > > producer > > > >>>>> config > > > >>>>>>> and handling exceptions at the application level. Or rather, it > > > can, > > > >>>>> but 1) > > > >>>>>>> it's a bit painful to have to reimplement at every call-site > for > > > >>>>>>> Producer::send (and any code that awaits the returned Future) > and > > > 2) > > > >>>>> it's > > > >>>>>>> impossible to do this without losing idempotency on retries. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 2. That said, I wonder if a pluggable interface is really the > > right > > > >>> call > > > >>>>>>> here. Documenting the interactions of a producer with > > > >>>>>>> a ClientExceptionHandler instance will be tricky, and > > implementing > > > >>> them > > > >>>>>>> will also be a fair amount of work. I believe that there needs > to > > > be > > > >>>>> some > > > >>>>>>> more granularity for how writes to non-existent topics (or > > really, > > > >>>>>>> UNKNOWN_TOPIC_OR_PARTITION and related errors from the broker) > > are > > > >>>>> handled, > > > >>>>>>> but I'm torn between keeping it simple with maybe one or two > new > > > >>>>> producer > > > >>>>>>> config properties, or a full-blown pluggable interface. If > there > > > are > > > >>>>> more > > > >>>>>>> cases that would benefit from a pluggable interface, it would > be > > > >> nice > > > >>> to > > > >>>>>>> identify these and add them to the KIP to strengthen the > > > motivation. > > > >>>>> Right > > > >>>>>>> now, I'm not sure the two that are mentioned in the motivation > > are > > > >>>>>>> sufficient. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 3. Alternatively, a possible compromise is for this KIP to > > > introduce > > > >>> new > > > >>>>>>> properties that dictate how to handle unknown-topic-partition > and > > > >>>>>>> record-too-large errors, with the thinking that if we > introduce a > > > >>>>> pluggable > > > >>>>>>> interface later on, these properties will be recognized by the > > > >> default > > > >>>>>>> implementation of that interface but could be completely > ignored > > or > > > >>>>>>> replaced by alternative implementations. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 4. (Nit) You can remove the "This page is meant as a template > for > > > >>>>> writing a > > > >>>>>>> KIP..." part from the KIP. It's not a template anymore :) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 5. If we do go the pluggable interface route, wouldn't we want > to > > > >> add > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>> possibility for retry logic? The simplest version of this could > > be > > > >> to > > > >>>>> add a > > > >>>>>>> RETRY value to the ClientExceptionHandlerResponse enum. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 6. I think "SKIP" or "DROP" might be clearer instead of > > "CONTINUE" > > > >> for > > > >>>>>>> the ClientExceptionHandlerResponse enum, since they cause > records > > > to > > > >>> be > > > >>>>>>> dropped. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Cheers, > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Chris > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 12:25 PM Justine Olshan > > > >>>>>>> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Hey Alieh, > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> I echo what Omnia says, I'm not sure I understand the > > implications > > > >> of > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>> change and I think more detail is needed. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> This comment also confused me a bit: > > > >>>>>>>> * {@code ClientExceptionHandler} that continues the > transaction > > > >> even > > > >>>>> if a > > > >>>>>>>> record is too large. > > > >>>>>>>> * Otherwise, it makes the transaction to fail. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Relatedly, I've been working with some folks on a KIP for > > > >>> transactions > > > >>>>>>>> errors and how they are handled. Specifically for the > > > >>>>>>>> RecordTooLargeException (and a few other errors), we want to > > give > > > a > > > >>> new > > > >>>>>>>> error category for this error that allows the application to > > > choose > > > >>>>> how it > > > >>>>>>>> is handled. Maybe this KIP is something that you are looking > > for? > > > >>> Stay > > > >>>>>>>> tuned :) > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Justine > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 8:03 AM Omnia Ibrahim < > > > >>> o.g.h.ibra...@gmail.com > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Alieh, > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP! I have couple of comments > > > >>>>>>>>> - You mentioned in the KIP motivation, > > > >>>>>>>>>> Another example for which a production exception handler > could > > > be > > > >>>>>>>> useful > > > >>>>>>>>> is if a user tries to write into a non-existing topic, which > > > >>> returns a > > > >>>>>>>>> retryable error code; with infinite retries, the producer > would > > > >> hang > > > >>>>>>>>> retrying forever. A handler could help to break the infinite > > > retry > > > >>>>> loop. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> How the handler can differentiate between something that is > > > >>> temporary > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>>>>>> it should keep retrying and something permanent like forgot > to > > > >>> create > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>> topic? temporary here could be > > > >>>>>>>>> the producer get deployed before the topic creation finish > > > >>> (specially > > > >>>>> if > > > >>>>>>>>> the topic creation is handled via IaC) > > > >>>>>>>>> temporary offline partitions > > > >>>>>>>>> leadership changing > > > >>>>>>>>> Isn’t this putting the producer at risk of dropping > > records > > > >>>>>>>>> unintentionally? > > > >>>>>>>>> - Can you elaborate more on what is written in the > > compatibility > > > / > > > >>>>>>>>> migration plan section please by explaining in bit more > details > > > >> what > > > >>>>> is > > > >>>>>>>> the > > > >>>>>>>>> changing behaviour and how this will impact client who are > > > >>> upgrading? > > > >>>>>>>>> - In the proposal changes can you elaborate in the KIP where > in > > > >> the > > > >>>>>>>>> producer lifecycle will ClientExceptionHandler and > > > >>>>>>>>> TransactionExceptionHandler get triggered, and how will the > > > >> producer > > > >>>>>>>>> configure them to point to costumed implementation. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks > > > >>>>>>>>> Omnia > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 17 Apr 2024, at 13:13, Alieh Saeedi > > > >>> <asae...@confluent.io.INVALID > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > > >>>>>>>>>> Here is the KIP-1038: Add Custom Error Handler to Producer. > > > >>>>>>>>>> < > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1038%3A+Add+Custom+Error+Handler+to+Producer > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I look forward to your feedback! > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alieh > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
