[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3445?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Ryan P updated KAFKA-3445:
--------------------------
Description:
I'll be the first to admit this is a bit nit picky but any property marked with
Importance.HIGH should be guarded against non-sensical values.
With that said I would like to suggest that TASKS_MAX_CONFIG be validating
against a lower bound limit of 1.
I do understand this is unlikely to happen and the configuration is nonsensical
but there is no penalty for stopping someone from trying it out.
was:
I'll be the first to admit this is a bit nit picky any property marked with
Importance.HIGH should be guarded against non-sensical values.
With that said I would like to suggest that TASKS_MAX_CONFIG be validating
against a lower bound limit of 1.
I do understand this is unlikely to happen and the configuration is nonsensical
but there is no penalty for stopping someone from trying it out.
> ConnectorConfig should validate TASKS_MAX_CONFIG's lower bound limit
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-3445
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3445
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: config
> Reporter: Ryan P
> Priority: Trivial
> Labels: newbie
> Attachments: KAFKA-3445.patch
>
>
> I'll be the first to admit this is a bit nit picky but any property marked
> with Importance.HIGH should be guarded against non-sensical values.
> With that said I would like to suggest that TASKS_MAX_CONFIG be validating
> against a lower bound limit of 1.
> I do understand this is unlikely to happen and the configuration is
> nonsensical but there is no penalty for stopping someone from trying it out.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
