Hey everyone
I'm closing the discussion as I haven't heard from 3 days.
Before I close the thread I would like to thank Sagar and Andrew for their
suggestions and feedback. I believe it has helped to improve the KIP.
Thank you all.
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 10:26 AM Jack Tomy wrote:
> All
All right, Thanks Andrew.
Hey everyone,
Please share your thoughts and feedback on the KIP :
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=263424937
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 2:50 AM Andrew Schofield <
andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote:
> Hi Jack,
> I do understand the
Hi Jack,
I do understand the idea of extending the Partitioner interface so that
people are now able to use headers in the partitioning decision, and I see
that it’s filling in gap in the interface which was left when headers were
originally added.
Experience with non-default partitioning schemes
Hey Andrew, Sagar
Please share your thoughts. Thanks.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 5:58 PM Jack Tomy wrote:
> Hey Andrew, Sagar
>
> Thanks. I'm travelling so sorry for being brief and getting back late.
>
> 1. For the first concern, that is moving in a direction of server side
> partitioner, the
Hey Andrew, Sagar
Thanks. I'm travelling so sorry for being brief and getting back late.
1. For the first concern, that is moving in a direction of server side
partitioner, the idea seems very much promising but I believe we still have
a long way to go. Since the proposal/design for the same is
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your comments.
1) Yes that makes sense and that's what even would expect to see as well. I
just wanted to highlight that we might still need a way to let client side
partitioning logic be present as well. Anyways, I am good on this point.
2) The example provided does seem
Hi Sagar,
Thanks for your comments.
1) Server-side partitioning doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s only one
way to do it. It just means that the partitioning logic runs on the broker and
any configuration of partitioning applies to the broker’s partitioner. If we
ever
see a KIP for this,
Hey Andrew,
Thanks for the review. Since I had reviewed the KIP I thought I would also
respond. Of course Jack has the final say on this since he wrote the KIP.
1) This is an interesting point and I hadn't considered it. The
comparison with KIP-848 is a valid one but even within that KIP, it
Hi Jack,
Thanks for the KIP. I have a few concerns about the idea.
1) I think that while a client-side partitioner seems like a neat idea and it’s
an established part of Kafka,
it’s one of the things which makes Kafka clients quite complicated. Just as
KIP-848 is moving from
client-side
Hey Everyone,
Please consider this as a gentle reminder.
Please have a look at the KIP and share your thoughts.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=263424937
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 7:28 PM Jack Tomy wrote:
> Hey @Sagar
>
> Thanks again for the review.
> 1. "a null
Hey @Sagar
Thanks again for the review.
1. "a null headers value is equivalent to invoking the older partition
method", this is not true. If someone makes an implementation and the
headers come as null, still the new implementation will take effect.
Instead I have added : "Not overriding this
Hi Jack,
Thanks I have a couple of final comments and then I am good.
1) Can you elaborate on the Javadocs of the partition headers argument to
specify that a null headers value is equivalent to invoking the older
partition method? It is apparent but generally good to call out.
2) In the
Hey @Sagar,
Thank you again for the response and feedback.
1. Though the ask wasn't very clear to me I have attached the Javadoc as
per your suggestion. Please have a look and let me know if this meets the
expectations.
2. Done.
3. Done
4. Done
Hey @Sagar and everyone,
Please
Thanks Jack for the updates.
Some more feedback:
1) It would be better if you can add the Javadoc in the Public interfaces
section. That is a general practice used which gives the readers of the KIP
a high level idea of the Public Interfaces.
2) In the proposed section, the bit about marking
Hey Everyone,
Please consider this as a reminder and share your feedback. Thank you.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=263424937
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 5:43 PM Jack Tomy wrote:
> Hey @Sagar,
>
> Thank you for the response and feedback.
>
>1. Done
>2.
Hey @Sagar,
Thank you for the response and feedback.
1. Done
2. Yeah, that was a mistake from my end. Corrected.
3. Can you please elaborate this, I have added the java doc along with
the code changes. Should I paste the same in KIP too?
4. Moved.
5. I have added one more use
Hi Jack,
Thanks for the KIP! Seems like an interesting idea. I have some feedback:
1) It would be great if you could clean up the text that seems to mimic the
KIP template. It is generally not required in the KIP.
2) In the Public Interfaces where you mentioned *Partitioner method in
Hey everyone,
Not seeing much discussion on the KPI. Might be because it is too
obvious .
If there are no more comments, I will start the VOTE in the coming days.
On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 8:48 PM Jack Tomy wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> Please take a look at the KPI below and provide your
Hey everyone,
Please take a look at the KPI below and provide your suggestions and
feedback. TIA.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=263424937
--
Best Regards
*Jack*
19 matches
Mail list logo
