Super nit: can we standardize the method & enum names?

Right now we have these enums:
StreamsUncaughtExceptionHandlerResponse
StreamsUncaughtExceptionHandlerResponseGlobalThread

and these callbacks:
handleUncaughtException()
handleExceptionInGlobalThread()

The method names have different syntax, which is a bit clunky. I don't have
any
strong opinions on what grammar they should follow, just that it should be
the
same for each. I also think that we should specify "StreamThread" somewhere
in the name of the StreadThread-specific callback, now that we have a second
callback that specifies it's for the GlobalThread. Something like
"*handleStreamThreadException()*" and "*handleGlobalThreadException*"

The enums are ok, although I think we should include "StreamThread"
somewhere
like with the callbacks. And we can probably shorten them a bit. For example
"*StreamThreadExceptionResponse*" and "*GlobalThreadExceptionResponse*"



On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:48 AM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote:

> Thanks Walker.
>
> Overall, LGTM. However, I am wondering if we should have default
> implementations for both handler methods? Before the latest change,
> there was only one method and having a default was not necessary.
> However, forcing people to implement both methods might not be the best
> user experience: for example, if there is no global thread, one should
> not need to implement the global handler method (and the other way around).
>
> Thus, it might be good to add default for both methods. If we add
> defaults, we should explain the default behavior to the KIP.
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 10/12/20 2:32 PM, Walker Carlson wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I just wanted to let you know that I had to make 2 minor updates to the
> KIP.
> >
> > 1) I changed the behavior of the shutdown client to not leave the client
> in
> > Error but instead close directly because this aligns better with our
> > state machine.
> >
> > 2) I added a separate call back for the global thread as it does not have
> > all the options as a streamThread does. i.e. replace. The default will be
> > to close the client. that will also be the only option as that is the
> > current behavior for the global thread.
> >
> > you can find the diff here:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=158876566&originalVersion=21&revisedVersion=23
> >
> > If you have any problems with these changes let me know and we can
> discuss
> > them further
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Walker
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 7:33 AM Walker Carlson <wcarl...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io>
> >> 4:51 AM (2 hours ago)
> >> to dev
> >> Thank you all for voting!
> >>
> >> This KIP is accepted with +3 binding (Guozhang, Bill, Matthias) and +2
> >> non-binding (Bruno, Leah).
> >>
> >> Matthias, we will take care of  the global threads, and for the
> >> replacement that will depend on Kip-663.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 4:59 AM Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks a lot Walker!
> >>>
> >>> +1 (non-binding)
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Bruno
> >>>
> >>> On 30.09.20 03:10, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> >>>> Thanks Walker. The proposed API changes LGTM.
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 (binding)
> >>>>
> >>>> One minor nit: you should also mention the global-thread that also
> needs
> >>>> to be shutdown if requested by the user.
> >>>>
> >>>> Minor side question: should we actually terminate a thread and create
> a
> >>>> new one, or instead revive the existing thread (reusing its existing
> >>> ID)?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -Matthias
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9/29/20 2:39 PM, Bill Bejeck wrote:
> >>>>> Thanks for the KIP Walker.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1 (binding)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Bill
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 4:59 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +1 again on the KIP.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 1:51 PM Leah Thomas <ltho...@confluent.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hey Walker,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP! I'm +1, non-binding.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>> Leah
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 1:56 PM Walker Carlson <
> >>> wcarl...@confluent.io>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hello all,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I made some changes to the KIP the descriptions are on the
> >>> discussion
> >>>>>>>> thread. If you have already voted I would ask you to confirm your
> >>> vote.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Otherwise please vote so we can get this feature in.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Walker
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 4:36 PM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org
> >
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP, Walker!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I’m +1 (binding)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -John
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, at 17:04, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for finalizing the KIP. +1 (binding)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 1:38 PM Walker Carlson <
> >>>>>>> wcarl...@confluent.io>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to start a thread to vote for KIP-671 to add a
> >>>>>> method
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> close
> >>>>>>>>>>> all clients in a kafka streams application.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> KIP:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-671%3A+Shutdown+Streams+Application+when+appropriate+exception+is+thrown
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Discussion thread: *here
> >>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/kafka-dev/202009.mbox/%3CCAC55fuh3HAGCxz-PzxTJraczy6T-os2oiCV328PBeuJQSVYASg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Walker
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> -- Guozhang
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

Reply via email to