No worries. Thanks for fixing it!
C.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 13:47, Justine Olshan wrote:
> Also apologies on the late link to the jira, but apparently https links do
> not work and it kept defaulting to an image on my desktop even when it
> looked like I put the correct link in. Weird...
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:41 PM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > I came up with a good solution for this and will push the commit soon. The
> > repartition will be called only when a partition is not manually sent.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 1:39 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, this is a generic partitioner method, so it shouldn't dictate any
> >> particular behavior.
> >>
> >> Colin
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 12:04, Justine Olshan wrote:
> >> > I also just noticed that if we want to use this method on the keyed
> >> record
> >> > case, I will need to move the method outside of the sticky (no key, no
> >> set
> >> > partition) check. Not a big problem, but something to keep in mind.
> >> > Perhaps, we should encapsulate the sticky vs. not behavior inside the
> >> > method? More things to think about.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:55 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Justine,
> >> > >
> >> > > The KIP discusses adding a new method to the partitioner interface.
> >> > >
> >> > > > default public Integer onNewBatch(String topic, Cluster cluster) {
> >> ... }
> >> > >
> >> > > However, this new method doesn't give the partitioner access to the
> >> key
> >> > > and value of the message. While this works for the case described
> >> here (no
> >> > > key), in general we might need this information when re-assigning a
> >> > > partitition based on the batch completing. So I think we should add
> >> these
> >> > > methods to onNewBatch.
> >> > >
> >> > > Also, it would be nice to call this something like
> >> "repartitionOnNewBatch"
> >> > > or something, to make it clearer what is going on.
> >> > >
> >> > > best,
> >> > > Colin
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 18:32, Boyang Chen wrote:
> >> > > > Thank you Justine for the KIP! Do you mind creating a corresponding
> >> JIRA
> >> > > > ticket too?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:51 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hi Justine,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks for the KIP. This looks great!
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > In one place in the KIP, you write: "Remove
> >> > > > > testRoundRobinWithUnavailablePartitions() and testRoundRobin()
> >> since
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > round robin functionality of the partitioner has been removed."
> >> You
> >> > > can
> >> > > > > skip this and similar lines. We don't need to describe changes to
> >> > > internal
> >> > > > > test classes in the KIP since they're not visible to users or
> >> external
> >> > > > > developers.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > It seems like maybe the performance tests should get their own
> >> section.
> >> > > > > Right now, the way the layout is makes it look like they are part
> >> of
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > "Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan"
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > best,
> >> > > > > Colin
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019, at 14:04, Justine Olshan wrote:
> >> > > > > > Hello,
> >> > > > > > This is the discussion thread for KIP-480: Sticky Partitioner.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-480%3A+Sticky+Partitioner
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Thank you,
> >> > > > > > Justine Olshan
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
