Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-45 Standardize all client sequence interaction on j.u.Collection.

Hi Jason, Yes, 0.9 clients should still work with 0.10 brokers. Thanks, Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > +users > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Jason Gustafson > wrote: > > > Hey Ismael, > > > > Thanks

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-45 Standardize all client sequence interaction on j.u.Collection.

+users On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hey Ismael, > > Thanks for bringing this up again. Just a quick question: if we do #1, > then there's no way that a user binary could work against both 0.9 and 0.10 > of kafka-clients, right? I'm not sure if

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-45 Standardize all client sequence interaction on j.u.Collection.

Coming back to this, see below. On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > 1. For subscribe() and assign(), change the parameter type to collection as > planned in the KIP. This is at least source-compatible, so as long as users > compile against the updated

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-45 Standardize all client sequence interaction on j.u.Collection.

Hi Becket, On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Becket Qin wrote: > 2. For seek(), pause(), resume(), it depends on how easily user can use > them. > If we take current interface, and user have a list of partitions to > pause(), what they can do is something like: >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-45 Standardize all client sequence interaction on j.u.Collection.

Most of the use cases of pause/resume that I've seen work only on single partitions (e.g in Kafka Streams), so the current varargs method is kind of nice. It would also be nice to be able to do the following: consumer.pause(consumer.assignment()); Both variants seem convenient in different

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-45 Standardize all client sequence interaction on j.u.Collection.

A good compromise would be to add an arity with a single TopicPartition. Jason Gustafson writes: > Most of the use cases of pause/resume that I've seen work only on single > partitions (e.g in Kafka Streams), so the current varargs method is kind of > nice. It would also be nice to be able to

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-45 Standardize all client sequence interaction on j.u.Collection.

Hi Pierre and Jason, A comment below. On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hi Pierre, > > Thanks for your persistence on this issue. I've gone back and forth on this > a few times. The current API can definitely be annoying in some cases, but > breaking

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-45 Standardize all client sequence interaction on j.u.Collection.

I have a minor preference toward modifying the API. Because it is source-compatible and protocol-compatible, the only case that will break is if you use client code from one version but run with a JAR from a different version, which sounds like a pretty weird setup in general. Its not a strong

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-45 Standardize all client sequence interaction on j.u.Collection.

Hi Pierre, Thanks for your persistence on this issue. I've gone back and forth on this a few times. The current API can definitely be annoying in some cases, but breaking compatibility still sucks. We do have the @Unstable annotation on the API, but it's unclear what exactly it means and I'm

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-45 Standardize all client sequence interaction on j.u.Collection.

Hi Jason, Thanks for weighing in on this. Here's my take: - I initially opted for overloading, but this met resistance (most vocally from Jay Kreps). I don't have strong feelings either way (I tend to prefer the current proposal without overloading but would understand the need to add it

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-45 Standardize all client sequence interaction on j.u.Collection.

Thanks Pierre. Including the dev mailing list. A few comments: 1. It's worth mentioning that the KafkaConsumer has the @InterfaceStability.Unstable annotation. 2. It would be good to show the existing signatures of the methods being changed before we show the changed signatures. 3. The proposed

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-45 Standardize all client sequence interaction on j.u.Collection.

Hi Ismael, Thanks for the review, I will act on these a bit later today. - pyr Ismael Juma writes: > Thanks Pierre. Including the dev mailing list. > > A few comments: > > 1. It's worth mentioning that the KafkaConsumer has the > @InterfaceStability.Unstable annotation. > 2. It would be