Thanks Guozhang. I missed Jun's question.
@Ismael Done.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Hello Jun,
>
> Just clarifying, it will be using the max.poll.interval.ms config, in the
> wiki we use the term "process timeout" for it which exposed in the consumer
> configs as "ma
Hello Jun,
Just clarifying, it will be using the max.poll.interval.ms config, in the
wiki we use the term "process timeout" for it which exposed in the consumer
configs as "max.poll.interval.ms". I have updated the wiki to make it more
clear.
Guozhang
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Jason Gust
Awesome, please update the KIP page Jason. :)
Ismael
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Jason Gustafson
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Looks like the vote has passed with +6 binding and +5 non-binding. Thanks
> everyone for help reviewing the proposal.
>
> -Jason
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Jay K
Hi All,
Looks like the vote has passed with +6 binding and +5 non-binding. Thanks
everyone for help reviewing the proposal.
-Jason
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Jay Kreps wrote:
> +1
>
> -Jay
>
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Jason Gustafson
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All, I've changed the defau
+1
-Jay
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Hi All, I've changed the default max.poll.interval.ms in the KIP to 5
> minutes. Unless there are any objections, perhaps we can skip the revote
> since this is a small change. In any case, I'll leave the vote open for
> another
Hi All, I've changed the default max.poll.interval.ms in the KIP to 5
minutes. Unless there are any objections, perhaps we can skip the revote
since this is a small change. In any case, I'll leave the vote open for
another day.
Thanks,
Jason
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:32 PM, Jay Kreps wrote:
> Also, checked exceptions? Really Ewen??? :-)
>
Haha, yeah. I thought checked exceptions were universally disliked. People
who favour static typing tend to prefer Disjunction/Either and the rest
tend to prefer unchecked exceptions.
Ismael
Jason, yeah I think raising to 3 minutes (or better yet 5 mins) would be
better since fewer people would hit it. I do think guessing is going to be
kind of annoying here since you will eventually hit the limit in prod and
curse us since it wasn't a limit you intended to set, but at least setting
a
Hey Jay,
Thanks for the comments. I'd be sorely tempted to default to an infinite
value for max.poll.interval.ms if we offered a separate rebalance timeout,
but it seems a little dangerous as long as we use the same setting for
both. In the worst case, a live-locked process could indefinitely keep
+1 on the KIP.
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> If we do that, shouldn't `max.poll.records` remain with the current default
> of `Integer.MAX_VALUE`?
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Jay Kreps wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > One small but important thing I think we should cons
If we do that, shouldn't `max.poll.records` remain with the current default
of `Integer.MAX_VALUE`?
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Jay Kreps wrote:
> +1
>
> One small but important thing I think we should consider changing: I think
> we should consider setting the default for max.poll.interval
+1
One small but important thing I think we should consider changing: I think
we should consider setting the default for max.poll.interval to infinite.
Previously our definition of alive was "polls within session timeout". Now
our definition of alive is "pings from b/g thread w/in session timeout"
Jason,
Thanks for the KIP. +1
Just one clarification. The KIP adds a rebalance timeout in the protocol,
but didn't say what value will be used. I guess we will use
max.poll.interval.ms?
Jun
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Jason Gustafson
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to open the vote for KI
+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Rajini Sivaram <
rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Grant Henke wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 8:50 PM, tao xiao wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 at 09
+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:45 AM, Grant Henke wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 8:50 PM, tao xiao wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 at 09:03 Harsha wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > > Thanks,
> > > Harsha
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016, at 05:46 PM, Henry Cai
+1
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 8:50 PM, tao xiao wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 at 09:03 Harsha wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> > Thanks,
> > Harsha
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016, at 05:46 PM, Henry Cai wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Ismael Juma
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
+1
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 at 09:03 Harsha wrote:
> +1 (binding)
> Thanks,
> Harsha
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016, at 05:46 PM, Henry Cai wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Guozhang Wang
> > > wr
+1 (binding)
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016, at 05:46 PM, Henry Cai wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Guozhang Wang
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Jason G
+1
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Guozhang Wang
> wrote:
>
> > +1.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Jason Gustafson
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I'd like to open the vote for KIP-62. This proposal at
+1 (binding)
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> +1.
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Jason Gustafson
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'd like to open the vote for KIP-62. This proposal attempts to address
> one
> > of the recurring usability problems that users of the
+1.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Jason Gustafson
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to open the vote for KIP-62. This proposal attempts to address one
> of the recurring usability problems that users of the new consumer have
> faced with as little impact as possible. You can read the full detail
Hi All,
I'd like to open the vote for KIP-62. This proposal attempts to address one
of the recurring usability problems that users of the new consumer have
faced with as little impact as possible. You can read the full details
here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-62%3A+Allow
22 matches
Mail list logo