Hi Richard, Thanks for the updates. I'm really glad you picked this up. A couple minor comments:
1. Can you list the full set of new APIs explicitly in the KIP? Currently I only see the javadoc for `position()`. 2. We should consider adding `TimeUnit` to the new methods to avoid unit confusion. I know it's inconsistent with the poll() API, but I think it was probably a mistake not to include it there, so better not to double down on that mistake. And note that we do already have `close(long, TimeUnit)`. Other than that, I think the current KIP seems reasonable. Thanks, Jason On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Richard Yu <yohan.richard...@gmail.com> wrote: > Note to all: I have included bounding commitSync() and committed() in this > KIP. > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Richard Yu <yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > >> > > > > >
