Thanks for the KIP I think adding ProductionExceptionHandlerResponse.RETRY is very valuable
But I agree with Sophie Blee-Goldman: all topics in the same way. The caller can determine whether the topic exists and take appropriate action. The judgment logic of the ProductionExceptionHandler will also be simpler. Sophie Blee-Goldman <sop...@responsive.dev> 于2024年7月2日周二 07:24写道： > Thanks for the KIP -- definitely agree with this proposal, just have a few > suggestions: > > 1. In the KIP, you mention > > We might also consider to not calling the handler when writing into > > internal topics, as those must exist. > > > Personally I would vote to consider all topics the same in this regard, and > don't fully > understand why we would treat internal topics differently. Presumably, both > internal > and user topics "must exist" by the time we attempt to write anything into > them, no? > Can you maybe clarify this part a bit further? > > 2. > Although I understand the stated purpose of this KIP is specifically around > the > ProductionExceptionHandler and the case of missing topics, a RETRY option > seems > like it would be useful in general and could also make sense for the new > ProcessingExceptionHandler. WDYT about adding RETRY to the processing > exception > handler as well? > I guess that also begs the question, what about the > DeserializationExceptionHandler? > Most serdes are probably (hopefully!) deterministic, but could > deserialization fail due > to network errors or other transient issues with schema registry? > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 12:35 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > as a follow up to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-16508 > > which is related to KIP-1038, I would like to prose adding a RETRY > > option to production error handler responses: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=311627309 > > > > Looking forward to your feedback. > > > > > > -Matthias > > >
