Why are there 2 PIPs being discussed as PIP-181? There's another
discussion on dev with
[DISCUSS] PIP-181: Provide new load balance placement strategy
implementation for ModularLoadManagerStrategy
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 1:13 AM Haiting Jiang
wrote:
> +1, Great feature.
>
> Thanks,
> Haiting
>
I created a pull request for removing jul-to-slf4j[1] and it seems all
existing tests aren't affected.
The Pulsar project uses slf4j as the logging facade consistently. If a user
want to add a dependency using a different logging framework, they should
take care of the packaging strategy themselve
michaeljmarshall commented on PR #131:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/131#issuecomment-1172907567
Thank you for confirming, @SignorMercurio.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL abov
On 2022/06/22 02:52:44 Yubiao Feng wrote:
> Hi, Pulsar community:
>
> I open a pip to discuss "Support the admin API to check unknown request
> parameters"
>
> Proposal Link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16135
>
> ### Motivation
>
> The design of the Admin API is now such that if
PR #16319 does the similar thing. Just sync the info to this mail thread.
IMO, the real problem is the definition of broker load (aka resource usage) is
not consistent in
bundle shedder and bundle assignment. The load balance module should have a
better
abstraction that contains both shedding
+1, Great feature.
Thanks,
Haiting
On 2022/07/01 16:56:08 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> Yes it's not a good idea to add such new features to active release
> branches.
> However, the shell will work with older cluster versions (as soon as the
> java client is compatible). Also you will be able to downlo
