Hi Andrew, Thanks for the feedback. I have updated KIP-512 and addressed AS2, AS3, and AS4. For AS1, let's wait for further responses from the community.
Regards, Rich On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 5:59 AM Andrew Schofield <andrew_schofi...@live.com> wrote: > Hi, > Thanks for adding the detail. It seems quite straightforward to > implement in the producer code. > > AS1: Personally, and of course this is a matter of taste and just one > opinion, I don’t like adding Headers to RecordMetadata. It seems to me > that RecordMetadata is information about the record that’s been produced > whereas the Headers are really part of the record itself. So, I prefer the > alternative which overloads ProducerInterceptor.onAcknowledgement. > > AS2: ProducerBatch and FutureRecordMetadata are both internal classes > and do not need to be documented in the KIP. > > AS3: This KIP is adding rather than replcaing the constructor for > RecordMetadata. > You should define the value for the Headers if an existing constructor > without headers is used. > > AS4: You should add a method `Headers headers()` to RecordMetadata. > > > I wonder what other community members think about whether it’s a good > idea to extend RecordMetadata with the headers. > > Thanks, > Andrew > > > On 29 Jul 2024, at 05:36, Rich C. <chenjy.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Thank you for the positive feedback. I added proposal changes to KIP-512 > > and included a FAQ section to address some concerns. > > > > Hi Andrew, yes, this KIP focuses on > > `ProducerInterceptor.onAcknowledgement`. I added FAQ#3 to explain that. > > > > Hi Matthias, for your question about "RecordMetadata being Kafka > metadata" in > > this thread > > < > https://lists.apache.org/list?dev@kafka.apache.org:lte=1M:make%20Record%20Headers%20available%20in%20onAcknowledgement > >, > > I added FAQ#2 to explain that. If I have missed any documentation > regarding > > the design of RecordMetadata, please let me know. > > > > Regards, > > Rich > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 4:00 PM Andrew Schofield < > andrew_schofi...@live.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Rich, > >> Thanks for resurrecting this KIP. It seems like a useful idea to me and > >> I’d be interested in seeing the proposed public interfaces. > >> > >> I note that you specifically called out the > >> ProducerInterceptor.onAcknowledgement > >> method, as opposed to the producer Callback.onCompletion method. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Andrew > >> > >>> On 26 Jul 2024, at 04:54, Rich C. <chenjy.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Kevin, > >>> > >>> Thanks for your support. > >>> > >>> Hi Matthias, > >>> > >>> I apologize for the confusion. I've deleted the Public Interface > sections > >>> for now. I think we should focus on discussing its necessity with the > >>> community. I'll let it sit for a few more days, and if there are no > >>> objections, I will propose changes over the weekend and share them here > >>> again. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Rich > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 5:51 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Rich, > >>>> > >>>> thanks for resurrecting this KIP. I was not part of the original > >>>> discussion back in the day, but personally agree with your assessment > >>>> that making headers available in the callbacks would make developer's > >>>> life much simpler. > >>>> > >>>> For the KIP itself, starting with "Public Interface" section, > everything > >>>> is formatted as "strike through". Can you fix this? It's confusing as > >>>> it's apparently not correctly formatted, but unclear which (if any) > >>>> parts should be formatted like this. In general, wiki pages have > >>>> history, so strike-through should be used rather rarely but the wiki > >>>> page should just contain the latest proposal. (If one want to see the > >>>> history, it's there anyway). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -Matthias > >>>> > >>>> On 7/23/24 6:36 AM, Kevin Lam wrote: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for starting the discussion. Latency Measurement and Tracing > >>>>> Completeness are both good reasons to support this feature, and would > >> be > >>>>> interested to see this move forward. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:15 PM Rich C. <chenjy.r...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Everyone, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I hope this email finds you well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I would like to start a discussion on KIP-512. The initial version > of > >>>>>> KIP-512 was created in 2019, and I have resurrected it in 2024 with > >> more > >>>>>> details about the motivation behind it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You can view the current version of the KIP here: KIP-512: Make > Record > >>>>>> Headers Available in onAcknowledgement. > >>>>>> < > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-512%3A+make+Record+Headers+available+in+onAcknowledgement > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let's focus on discussing the necessity of this feature first. If we > >>>> agree > >>>>>> on its importance, we can then move on to discussing the proposed > >>>> changes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>> Rich > > >
