Thank you all for voting!
This KIP is accepted with
- 1 non-binding +1 (Leah)
- 4 binding +1 (John, Sophie, Matthias, Guozhang)
Best,
Bruno
On 28.01.21 18:13, Guozhang Wang wrote:
+1 again from me.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:06 AM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> wrote:
Thank you for the KIP, Bruno!
I'm +1 (binding)
-John
On Wed, 2021-01-27 at 14:18 -0600, Leah Thomas wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I'm still +1, non-binding. Thanks for the updates!
Leah
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 1:56 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org>
wrote:
Thanks for updating the KIP.
+1 (binding)
-Matthias
On 1/27/21 10:19 AM, Bruno Cadonna wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for voting!
I updated the KIP with some additional feedback I got.
If I do not hear anything from folks that have already voted in the
next
couple of days, I will assume their vote is still valid. You can also
confirm your vote if you want.
KIP: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/7CnZCQ
Best,
Bruno
On 26.01.21 02:19, Sophie Blee-Goldman wrote:
Thanks for the KIP Bruno, +1 (binding)
Sophie
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:23 AM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hey Bruno,
Thanks for your response!
1) Yup I'm good with option a) as well.
2) Thanks!
3) Sounds good to me. I think it would not change any
StreamThread
implementation regarding capturing exceptions from
consumer.poll()
since it
captures StreamsException as fatal.
Guozhang
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 4:43 AM Bruno Cadonna <
br...@confluent.io>
wrote:
Hi Guozhang,
Thank for the feedback!
Please find my answers inline.
Best,
Bruno
On 14.12.20 23:33, Guozhang Wang wrote:
Hello Bruno,
Just a few more questions about the KIP:
1) If the internal topics exist but the calculated
num.partitions do
not
match the existing topics, what would Streams do;
Good point! I missed to explicitly consider misconfigurations
in the
KIP.
I propose to throw a fatal error in this case during manual and
automatic initialization. For the fatal error, we have two
options:
a) introduce a second exception besides
MissingInternalTopicException,
e.g. MisconfiguredInternalTopicException
b) rename MissingInternalTopicException to
MissingOrMisconfiguredInternalTopicException and throw that in
both
cases.
Since the process to react on such an exception user-side
should be
similar, I am fine with option b). However, IMO option a) is a
bit
cleaner. WDYT?
2) Since `init()` is a blocking call (we only return after
all topics
are
confirmed to be created), should we have a timeout for this
call as
well
or
not;
I will add an overload with a timeout to the KIP.
3) If the configure is set to `MANUAL_SETUP`, then during
rebalance
do
we
still check if number of partitions of the existing topic
match or
not;
if
not, do we throw the newly added exception or throw a fatal
StreamsException? Today we would throw the StreamsException
from
assign()
which would be then thrown from consumer.poll() as a fatal
error.
Yes, I think we should check if the number of partitions
match. I
propose to throw the newly added exception in the same way as
we throw
now the MissingSourceTopicException, i.e., throw it from
consumer.poll(). WDYT?
Guozhang
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:47 PM John Roesler <
vvcep...@apache.org>
wrote:
Thanks, Bruno!
I'm +1 (binding)
-John
On Mon, 2020-12-14 at 09:57 -0600, Leah Thomas wrote:
Thanks for the KIP Bruno, LGTM. +1 (non-binding)
Cheers,
Leah
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 4:29 AM Bruno Cadonna <
br...@confluent.io>
wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to start the voting on KIP-698 that proposes
an explicit
user
initialization of broker-side state for Kafka Streams
instead of
letting
Kafka Streams setting up the broker-side state
automatically
during
rebalance. Such an explicit initialization avoids
possible data
loss
issues due to automatic initialization.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/7CnZCQ
Best,
Bruno
--
-- Guozhang
