Hi Jason, Yeah I agree that "max.block.ms" makes people thinking of the producer's config with the same name, but their semantics are different.
On the other hand, I'm a bit concerned with the reusing of the term `timeout` as we already have `session.timeout.ms` and `request.timeout.ms` in ConsumerConfig.. How about using the name `default.api.block.ms` or simply `default.block.ms`? Guozhang On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hey All, > > One more minor follow-up. As I was reviewing the change mentioned above, I > felt the name `max.block.ms` was a little bit misleading since it only > applies to methods which do not have an explicit timeout. A clearer name > given its usage might be `default.timeout.ms`. It is the default timeout > for any blocking API which does not have a timeout. I'm leaning toward > using this name since the current one seems likely to cause confusion. Any > thoughts? > > Thanks, > Jason > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for the KIP! I am in favor of the option 1. > > > > +1 as well. > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks everyone for the feedback. I've updated the KIP and added > > > KAFKA-6979. > > > > > > -Jason > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks Jason. I'm in favor of option 1 as well. > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > For what it's worth I'm +1 on Option 1 and the default value for > the > > > > > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > In addition to reasons outlined above by Jason, I think it will > help > > to > > > > > reason about consumer behavior (with respect to blocking) having > the > > > > > configuration and default value aligned with the producer. > > > > > > > > > > -Bill > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:40 PM Jason Gustafson < > > ja...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps one minute? That is the default used by the producer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Ismael Juma < > ism...@juma.me.uk> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Option 1 sounds good to me provided that we can come up with > a > > > good > > > > > > > > default. What would you suggest? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:41 AM Jason Gustafson < > > > > ja...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There remains some inconsistency in the timeout behavior of > > the > > > > > > > consumer > > > > > > > > > APIs which do not accept a timeout. Some of them block > > forever > > > > > (e.g. > > > > > > > > > position()) and some of them use request.timeout.ms (e.g. > > > > > > > > > parititonsFor()). > > > > > > > > > I think we'd probably all agree that blocking forever is > not > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > behavior and using request.timeout.ms has always been a > hack > > > > since > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > controls a separate concern. I think there are basically > two > > > > > options > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > address this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We can add max.block.ms to match the producer and use > it > > as > > > > the > > > > > > > > default > > > > > > > > > timeout when a timeout is not explicitly provided. This > will > > > fix > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > indefinite blocking behavior and avoid conflating > > > > > request.timeout.ms > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > 2. We can deprecate the methods which don't accept a > timeout. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm leaning toward the first solution because I think we > want > > > to > > > > > push > > > > > > > > users > > > > > > > > > to specifying timeouts through configuration rather than in > > > code > > > > > > (Jay's > > > > > > > > > original argument). I think the overloads are still useful > > for > > > > > > advanced > > > > > > > > > usage (e.g. in kafka streams), but we should give users an > > easy > > > > > > option > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > reasonable default behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that sounds ok, I'd propose we add it to this KIP and > fix > > it > > > > > now. > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > gives users an easy way to get the benefit of the > > improvements > > > > from > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > KIP without changing any code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Richard Yu < > > > > > > > yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With 3 binding votes and 6 non-binding, this KIP would be > > > > > accepted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for participating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 2:35 AM, Edoardo Comar < > > > > > edoco...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 May 2018 at 10:29, zhenya Sun <toke...@126.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 non-binding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 在 2018年5月10日，下午5:19，Manikumar < > > > manikumar.re...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > 写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Mickael Maison < > > > > > > > > > > > > mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 (non binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > > > > > > > > > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hi Richard, Thanks for the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Rajini > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Guozhang Wang < > > > > > > > > > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1 from me, thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Jason > Gustafson < > > > > > > > > > > > ja...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the KIP, +1 (binding). > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> One small correction: the KIP mentions that > > close() > > > > > will > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > >> deprecated, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> but > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> we do not want to do this because it is needed > by > > > the > > > > > > > > Closeable > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> interface. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> We only want to deprecate close(long, TimeUnit) > > in > > > > > favor > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> close(Duration). > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> -Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 12:43 AM, khaireddine > > > Rezgui < > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> khaireddine...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2018-05-07 20:35 GMT+01:00 Bill Bejeck < > > > > > > bbej...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Richard Yu < > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> yohan.richard...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi all, I would like to bump this thread > since > > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> KIP > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> appears to be reaching its conclusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Richard Yu > < > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Since there does not seem to be too much > > > > discussion > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > >> KIP-266, I > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> be > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> starting a voting thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Here is the link to KIP-266 for reference: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/ > > > > confluence/pages/viewpage > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> action?pageId=75974886 > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Recently, I have made some updates to the > > KIP. > > > To > > > > > > > > > reiterate, > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> have > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> included KafkaConsumer's commitSync, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> poll, and committed in the KIP. (we will be > > > > adding > > > > > > to a > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> TimeoutException > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to them as well, in a similar manner > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to what we will be doing for position()) > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Richard Yu > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -- > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Ingénieur en informatique > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -- > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > "When the people fear their government, there is > tyranny; > > > > when > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > government fears the people, there is liberty." [Thomas > > > > > > Jefferson] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > -- -- Guozhang
