Hi all, I updated the KIP where overloading position() is now the favored approach. Bounding position() using requestTimeoutMs has been listed as rejected.
Any thoughts? On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree that adding the overloads is most flexible. But going for that > direction we'd do that for all the blocking call that I've listed above, > with this timeout value covering the end-to-end waiting time. > > > Guozhang > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > bq. The most flexible option is to add overloads to the consumer > > > > This option is flexible. > > > > Looking at the tail of SPARK-18057, Spark dev voiced the same choice. > > > > +1 for adding overload with timeout parameter. > > > > Cheers > > > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > @Guozhang I probably have suggested all options at some point or > another, > > > including most recently, the current KIP! I was thinking that > practically > > > speaking, the request timeout defines how long the user is willing to > > wait > > > for a response. The consumer doesn't really have a complex send process > > > like the producer for any of these APIs, so I wasn't sure how much > > benefit > > > there would be from having more granular control over timeouts (in the > > end, > > > KIP-91 just adds a single timeout to control the whole send). That > said, > > it > > > might indeed be better to avoid overloading the config as you suggest > > since > > > at least it avoids inconsistency with the producer's usage. > > > > > > The most flexible option is to add overloads to the consumer so that > > users > > > can pass the timeout directly. I'm not sure if that is more or less > > > annoying than a new config, but I've found config timeouts a little > > > constraining in practice. For example, I could imagine users wanting to > > > wait longer for an offset commit operation than a position lookup; if > the > > > latter isn't timely, users can just pause the partition and continue > > > fetching on others. If you cannot commit offsets, however, it might be > > > safer for an application to wait availability of the coordinator than > > > continuing. > > > > > > -Jason > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hello Richard, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the proposed KIP. I have a couple of general comments: > > > > > > > > 1. I'm not sure if piggy-backing the timeout exception on the > > > > existing requestTimeoutMs configured in "request.timeout.ms" is a > good > > > > idea > > > > since a) it is a general config that applies for all types of > requests, > > > and > > > > 2) using it to cover all the phases of an API call, including network > > > round > > > > trip and potential metadata refresh is shown to not be a good idea, > as > > > > illustrated in KIP-91: > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > 91+Provide+Intuitive+User+Timeouts+in+The+Producer > > > > > > > > In fact, I think in KAFKA-4879 which is aimed for the same issue as > > > > KAFKA-6608, > > > > Jason has suggested we use a new config for the API. Maybe this would > > be > > > a > > > > more intuitive manner than reusing the request.timeout.ms config. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Besides the Consumer.position() call, there are a couple of more > > > > blocking calls today that could result in infinite blocking: > > > > Consumer.commitSync() and Consumer.committed(), should they be > > considered > > > > in this KIP as well? > > > > > > > > 3. There are a few other APIs that are today relying on > > > request.timeout.ms > > > > already for breaking the infinite blocking, namely > > > Consumer.partitionFor(), > > > > Consumer.OffsetAndTimestamp() and Consumer.listTopics(), if we are > > making > > > > the other blocking calls to be relying a new config as suggested in > 1) > > > > above, should we also change the semantics of these API functions for > > > > consistency? > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Richard Yu < > > yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > I would like to discuss a potential change which would be made to > > > > > KafkaConsumer: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage. > > > > action?pageId=75974886 > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Richard Yu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang >
