hachikuji commented on a change in pull request #10599: URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/10599#discussion_r621576098
########## File path: clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/admin/AbortTransactionResult.java ########## @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more + * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with + * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. + * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0 + * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with + * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. + * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and + * limitations under the License. + */ +package org.apache.kafka.clients.admin; + +import org.apache.kafka.common.KafkaException; +import org.apache.kafka.common.KafkaFuture; +import org.apache.kafka.common.TopicPartition; +import org.apache.kafka.common.annotation.InterfaceStability; +import org.apache.kafka.common.internals.KafkaFutureImpl; + +import java.util.Map; +import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException; + +@InterfaceStability.Evolving +public class AbortTransactionResult { + private final Map<TopicPartition, KafkaFutureImpl<Void>> futures; + + AbortTransactionResult(Map<TopicPartition, KafkaFutureImpl<Void>> futures) { + this.futures = futures; + } + + public KafkaFuture<Void> all() { Review comment: I realized what I was doing here. Right now, the API is taking only a single `AbortTransactionSpec`, so `all()` has no ambiguity. In the future, we could decide to add batching, but I cannot think of a strong reason for it. It does not make much sense for the hanging transaction cleanup use case. However, if we do decide to, then it will complicate the types in here a bit because the key will probably have to be the `AbortTransactionSpec` itself since `WriteTxnMarkers` does batching both by topic partition and the tuple of `(producerId, producerEpoch, coordinatorEpoch)`. Here I decided to try and keep it simple without committing to a more granular API. Does that seem reasonable? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
