Thanks for the KIP David, nice to see this alignment! LM1: About topic ID resolution & adding the topics to the producer metadata. The topics used for the sendOffsetsToTransaction will commonly not be the ones found in the producer metadata (topics being produced to), so agree with the waiting to resolve, otherwise seems we wouldn't hit the topic ID path, but should we keep them around in metadata, or treat them as "transient" topics (removed from metadata after the call completes, similar to what we have in the consumer path). I imagine the latter, mostly to avoid polluting the producer metadata, but thoughts?
Agree with chia1 btw (we already have confusing mapping for that generation Id on the client side, to epoch in some places, to generation in others) Best, Lianet On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 2:19 PM Chia-Ping Tsai <[email protected]> wrote: > > hi David > > the KIP is excellent. I have only one small question. > > chia1: Regarding the renaming of `GenerationId` to > `GenerationIdOrMemberEpoch`: I'm wondering if we should also align the > naming of `ConsumerGroupMetadata#generationId` to stay consistent? > > Best, > Chia-Ping > > Andrew Schofield <[email protected]> 於 2026年4月22日週三 下午3:32寫道： > > > Hi David, > > Thanks for the KIP. Just one query. > > > > AS1: Is there any reason why GenerationIdOrMemberEpoch is ignorable in > > OffsetCommitRequest but not in TxnOffsetCommitRequest? > > > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > > > On 2026/04/21 20:13:20 David Jacot wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I would like to start the discussion on KIP-1319. This is a minor KIP > > > which brings the TxnOffsetCommit API in line with the OffsetCommit > > > API. > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/NJI8G > > > > > > Thanks, > > > David > > > > >
