I think this still makes sense as a separate KIP. For KIP-691, we are just
looking to help define the error contract for the new API.

-Jason

On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 8:39 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote:

> Are we saying that we won't pursue this KIP in favor of the other one?
>
> Ismael
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021, 4:15 AM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > hi Jason
> >
> > Thanks for your response. "transmit" is good to me.
> >
> > As we discussed by email, KIP-706 is going to be merged to KIP-691(
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/PSfZCQ). Hence, please feel free
> to
> > replace "produce" by "transmit" in KIP-691.
> >
> > Best,
> > Chia-Ping
> >
> > On 2021/01/30 00:48:38, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > Hi Chia-Ping,
> > >
> > > I think this is a great idea. It is a pity that we cannot continue to
> use
> > > the `send` verb, but I don't see how we can. I know we considered
> > > `transmit` as another option which is closer to `send`. That would
> avoid
> > > the redundancy when people choose the common "producer" variable name.
> > >
> > > producer.transmit
> > >
> > > instead of
> > >
> > > producer.produce
> > >
> > > A couple alternatives might be `write` or `append`. I'm happy with
> > > `produce` as well, but curious if others have thoughts.
> > >
> > > -Jason
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:37 AM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to start the discussion thread for KIP-706:
> > > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=100829459
> > > >
> > > > KIP-706 is proposing to introduce new API "CompletionStage
> > > > produce(record)" to Producer. Kafka users can leverage
> CompletionStage
> > to
> > > > write asynchronous non-blocking code. CompletionStage is more
> powerful
> > than
> > > > Future and callback. Also, the code using Future and callback can be
> > easily
> > > > re-written by CompletionStage.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Chia-Ping
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to