Hi Baodi, > `negativeAcknowledge` also needs to add the same checks as the new > acknowledge interface
Good suggestion. I will add it. > This can users to clearly associate the use cases of MultiTopicConsumer and > TopicMessageId. IMO. Users should not care about the MultiTopicsConsumer and TopicMessageId when using `receive` and `acknowledge` APIs. We only need to guarantee the following code works. ```java var msg = consumer.receive(); consumer.acknowledge(msg.getMessageId()); ``` Currently, `acknowledge` works well but there is no standard to handle the exceptional case, e.g. a multi-topics consumer tries to acknowledge a message id from a single-topic consumer. This proposal makes the behavior clear that PulsarClientException.NotAllowedException will be thrown in this case. In addition, for these users, they can use `TopicMessageId#create` after this proposal. ```java var msg = singleTopicConsumer.receive(); multiTopicsConsumer.acknowledge(TopicMessageId.create(msg.getMessageId())); ``` However, this solution is just for experienced Pulsar developers. They don't need to use `TopicMessageIdImpl` anymore. But for normal users, adding overloads could make it more complicated. They have to know what the TopicMessageId is when using the `acknowledge` methods. Thanks, Yunze On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:12 PM Baodi Shi <baodi....@icloud.com.invalid> wrote: > > Hi, Yunze: > > Thanks for your proposal. That Looks good to me. > > `negativeAcknowledge` also needs to add the same checks as the new > acknowledge interface. > > > This interface doesn't add any acknowledge overload because the overloads > > are already too many. But it will make the behavior clear. > I think since we exposed the TopicMessageId, it would be better to add > overloaded interfaces (even if the overloads are a lot). This can users to > clearly associate the use cases of MultiTopicConsumer and TopicMessageId. > > Also, while it's okay to use TopicMessageId param on a single consumer, I > guess we shouldn't allow users to use it. > > In this way, users are clearly aware that TopicMessageId is used when using > MultiTopicConsumer and MessageId is used when using > SingleTopicConsumer.(Maybe it's not a good idea) > > > Thanks, > Baodi Shi > > > 2022年11月29日 15:57，Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.INVALID> 写道： > > > >> Is there a case where the user uses the messageId returned by the > > producer to seek in the consumer? Is this a good behavior? > > > > Yes. I think it should be acceptable. To correct my previous point, > > now I think the MessageId returned by send should also be able to be > > applied for seek or acknowledge. > > > >> even with the > > current proposal, it may return null when getting the topic from > > TopicMessageId for backward compatibility. > > > > No. It may return null just because Java doesn't allow a non-null > > returned value. The internal implementations of > > TopicMessageId#getOwerTopic should return a non-null topic name to > > avoid null check. > > > > When I mentioned **the implementation of getTopicName() must return > > null**, the assumption is that MessageId#toByteArray serializes the > > topic name if adding the `getTopicName()` method. However, in this > > proposal, `TopicMessageId#toByteArray` won't. See the implementation > > of `TopicMessageId#create`. It's only a wrapper for an arbitrary > > MessageId implementation. > > > > Thanks, > > Yunze > > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 2:47 PM Zike Yang <z...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Yunze, > >> > >> Thanks for your proposal. Quoted from your GitHub comments[0]: > >> > >>> There is also a case when MessageId is returned from Producer#send. In > >>> this case, the returned MessageId should only used for serialization > >> > >> Is there a case where the user uses the messageId returned by the > >> producer to seek in the consumer? Is this a good behavior? > >> > >>> If we added the method directly to MessageId, to keep the backward > >>> compatibility, the implementation of getTopicName() must return null, > >>> which is not a good design. > >> > >> I think it's a trade-off. If I understand correctly, even with the > >> current proposal, it may return null when getting the topic from > >> TopicMessageId for backward compatibility. The current > >> TopicMessageIdImpl doesn't serialize the topic information. > >> > >> > >> [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18616#issuecomment-1328609346 > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Zike Yang > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 12:22 PM Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> I've opened a PIP to discuss: > >>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18616. > >>> > >>> The consumer's MessageId related APIs have some hidden requirements > >>> and flakiness and some behaviors are not documented well. This > >>> proposal will introduce a TopicMessageId interface that exposes a > >>> method to get a message's owner topic. > >>> > >>> P.S. There was an email [1] that didn't add the "[DISCUSS]" label, > >>> which might be a little confusing. So I sent the email again for > >>> discussion. Please do not reply to the previous email. > >>> > >>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/6gj16pmrjk6ncsd30xrl20pr5ng6t61o > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Yunze >
