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
<clebert.suco...@gmail.com> 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 <j...@confluent.io> 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 <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
>> 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
