Hi everyone,
Thanks for all your feedback. So far, there has been no negative
feedback. I would like to start a vote on this PIP.
Thanks,
Zike Yang
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 3:37 PM Yunze Xu wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Regarding the questions from Heesung, the customized load manager
> could impl
+1 (binding)
Regarding the questions from Heesung, the customized load manager
could implement its own lookup logic when the `LookupOptions` has a
specific property.
For example, given a topic "my-topic" and two brokers with
"lookup.broker" as "A" and "B".
- The client with lookup property "broke
Hi everyone, Thanks for your comments.
> 1. Given that the current pulsar assigns topics to brokers at the
bundle level, what happens with a topic lookup with rack info(rack A)
for the bundle that's already assigned to a different rack(rack B)?
In this case, the bundle has already been assigned t
Although I agree with this direction, having the config in the lookup
requests, I have the following questions.
1. Given that the current pulsar assigns topics to brokers at the
bundle level, what happens with a topic lookup with rack info(rack A)
for the bundle that's already assigned to a differ
+1 (not binding)
Heesung
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 7:52 PM Jie crossover wrote:
>
> +1
> I left some comments in the PR.
> --
> Best Regards！
> crossoverJie
>
>
> Zike Yang 于2024年7月25日周四 11:15写道：
>
> > Hi, all,
> >
> > I proposed a new proposal to add client properties support for the
> > lookup:
+1
I left some comments in the PR.
--
Best Regards！
crossoverJie
Zike Yang 于2024年7月25日周四 11:15写道：
> Hi, all,
>
> I proposed a new proposal to add client properties support for the
> lookup: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/23075
>
> PTAL and share your thoughts. Thanks!
>
> BR,
> Zike Yan
Hi, all,
I proposed a new proposal to add client properties support for the
lookup: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/23075
PTAL and share your thoughts. Thanks!
BR,
Zike Yang
