I can start a KIP discussion on this.. or not if you really think this is against basic rules...
I will need authorization to create the page.. if you could assign me regardless so I can have it for next time? On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> wrote: > Just as a facility for users... I think it would be easier to > prototype consumers and producer by simply doing new > Consumer("tcp://HOST:PORT") or new Producer("tcp://HOST:PORT")... > > on the other project I work (ActiveMQ Artemis) we used to do a similar > way to what Kafka does..we then provided the URI support and I now > think the URI was a lot easier. > > I'm just trying to leverage my experience into here... I'm an apache > committer at ActiveMQ Artemis.. I think I could bring some goodies > into Kafka.. I see no reason to be a competitor.. instead I'm all up > to contribute here as well. And I was looking for something small and > easy to start with. > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Jay Kreps <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hey Clebert, >> >> Is there a motivation for adding a second way? We generally try to avoid >> having two ways to do something unless it's really needed...I suspect you >> have a reason for wanting this, though. >> >> -Jay >> >> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:15 AM Clebert Suconic <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> At ActiveMQ and ActiveMQ Artemis, ConnectionFactories have an >>> interesting feature where you can pass parameters through an URI. >>> >>> I was looking at Producer and Consumer APIs, and these two classes are >>> using a method that I considered old for Artemis resembling HornetQ: >>> >>> Instead of passing a Properties (aka HashMaps), users would be able to >>> create a Consumer or Producer by simply doing: >>> >>> new Consumer("tcp::/host:port?properties=values;properties=values...etc"); >>> >>> Example: >>> >>> >>> Instead of the following: >>> >>> Map<String, Object> config = new HashMap<>(); >>> config.put(ConsumerConfig.BOOTSTRAP_SERVERS_CONFIG, "localhost:9999"); >>> config.put(ConsumerConfig.RECEIVE_BUFFER_CONFIG, -2); >>> new KafkaConsumer<>(config, new ByteArrayDeserializer(), new >>> ByteArrayDeserializer()); >>> >>> >>> >>> Someone could do >>> >>> new KafkaConsumer<>("tcp://localhost:9999?receive.buffer.bytes=-2", >>> new ByteArrayDeserializer(), new ByteArrayDeserializer()); >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't know if that little API improvement would be welcomed? I would be >>> able to send a Pull Request but I don't want to do it if that wouldn't >>> be welcomed in the first place: >>> >>> >>> Just an idea... let me know if that is welcomed or not. >>> >>> If so I can forward the discussion into how I would implement it. >>> > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic -- Clebert Suconic
