Hi Anna,
Thanks for getting this KIP going again.
I agree with pushing forward on option 0 as well. I a couple of questions
about the KIP as written.
The KIP states that any {{ClassCastException}} thrown plus any other
unchecked exceptions will result in a log statement and not stop processing
if the handler returns CONTINUE.
1. I'm wondering if DEBUG is the correct level vs. a WARN, although, at
WARN, we could end up spamming the log file.
2. Are allowing all unchecked exceptions to proceed to permissive? I
could be overly cautious here, but I'm afraid of masking a serious
problem.
Overall I'm in favor of this KIP and if you feel it's good as is, I
wouldn't block on these questions I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents.
Thanks,
Bill
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 7:02 PM Mitchell <mitche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm happy to have the serialization handler now. I've hit this issue
> a number of times in the past.
>
> I think the other options are also large enough they probably deserve
> their own KIPs to properly document the changes.
> -mitch
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 7:33 PM am <jbfle...@happypants.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I would like to re-restart the discussion of KIP-399
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-399%3A+Extend+ProductionExceptionHandler+to+cover+serialization+exceptions
> >
> > The last conversation centered on if this KIP should address the issues
> > around state store/change log divergence with Matthias presenting three
> > options:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *To move this KIP forward, maybe we can just (0) add the handler
> > forserialization exceptions when writing into any topic and consider it
> > anincremental improvement. Ie, (1) we keep the door open to let state
> > andchangelog topic diverge (current status) (2) we allow people to
> > violateEOS (current state) (3) and we don't improve the handling of DSL
> > statestore serialization exceptions.We could address (1), (2), and/or (3)
> > in follow up KIPs.Thoughts? Let us know if you only want to address (0),
> or
> > extend thecurrent KIP to include any of (1-3).*
> >
> >
> > I would like to propose we go with option 0 and treat this as an
> > incremental improvement that applies to any topic and address the issue
> of
> > divergence in future KIP(s).
> >
> > Feedback, thoughts and musings appreciated,
> >
> > anna
>
