@Jan: EOS will be turned off by default in 0.11. I assume, we might enable it by default in a later release but the will be always a config to disable it.
-Matthias
On 6/5/17 10:19 AM, Jan Filipiak wrote:
> Hi
>
> just my few thoughts
>
> On 05.06.2017 11:44, Eno Thereska wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply, I was out this past week. Looks like good
>> progress was made with the discussions either way. Let me recap a
>> couple of points I saw into one big reply:
>>
>> 1. Jan mentioned CRC errors. I think this is a good point. As these
>> happen in Kafka, before Kafka Streams gets a chance to inspect
>> anything, I'd like to hear the opinion of more Kafka folks like Ismael
>> or Jason on this one. Currently the documentation is not great with
>> what to do once a CRC check has failed. From looking at the code, it
>> looks like the client gets a KafkaException (bubbled up from the
>> fetcher) and currently we in streams catch this as part of poll() and
>> fail. It might be advantageous to treat CRC handling in a similar way
>> to serialisation handling (e.g., have the option to fail/skip). Let's
>> see what the other folks say. Worst-case we can do a separate KIP for
>> that if it proved too hard to do in one go.
> there is no reasonable way to "skip" a crc error. How can you know the
> length you read was anything reasonable? you might be completely lost
> inside your response.
>> 2. Damian has convinced me that the KIP should just be for
>> deserialisation from the network, not from local state store DBs. For
>> the latter we'll follow the current way of failing since the DB is
>> likely corrupt.
>>
>> 3. Dead letter queue option. There was never any intention here to do
>> anything super clever like attempt to re-inject the failed records
>> from the dead letter queue back into the system. Reasoning about when
>> that'd be useful in light of all sorts of semantic breakings would be
>> hard (arguably impossible). The idea was to just have a place to have
>> all these dead records to help with subsequent debugging. We could
>> also just log a whole bunch of info for a poison pill record and not
>> have a dead letter queue at all. Perhaps that's a better, simpler,
>> starting point.
> +1
>>
>> 4. Agree with Jay on style, a DefaultHandler with some config options.
>> Will add options to KIP. Also as part of this let's remove the
>> threshold logger since it gets complex and arguably the ROI is low.
>>
>> 5. Jay's JSON example, where serialisation passes but the JSON message
>> doesn't have the expected fields, is an interesting one. It's a bit
>> complicated to handle this in the middle of processing. For example,
>> some operators in the DAG might actually find the needed JSON fields
>> and make progress, but other operators, for the same record, might not
>> find their fields and will throw an exception.
>>
>> At a minimum, handling this type of exception will need to involve the
>> exactly-once (EoS) logic. We'd still allow the option of failing or
>> skipping, but EoS would need to clean up by rolling back all the side
>> effects from the processing so far. Matthias, how does this sound?
> Eos will not help the record might be 5,6 repartitions down into the
> topology. I haven't followed but I pray you made EoS optional! We don't
> need this and we don't want this and we will turn it off if it comes. So
> I wouldn't recommend relying on it. The option to turn it off is better
> than forcing it and still beeing unable to rollback badpills (as
> explained before)
>>
>> 6. Will add an end-to-end example as Michael suggested.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Eno
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4 Jun 2017, at 02:35, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> wrote:
>>>
>>> What I don't understand is this:
>>>
>>>> From there on its the easiest way forward: fix, redeploy, start =>
>>>> done
>>> If you have many producers that work fine and a new "bad" producer
>>> starts up and writes bad data into your input topic, your Streams app
>>> dies but all your producers, including the bad one, keep writing.
>>>
>>> Thus, how would you fix this, as you cannot "remove" the corrupted date
>>> from the topic? It might take some time to identify the root cause and
>>> stop the bad producer. Up to this point you get good and bad data into
>>> your Streams input topic. If Streams app in not able to skip over those
>>> bad records, how would you get all the good data from the topic? Not
>>> saying it's not possible, but it's extra work copying the data with a
>>> new non-Streams consumer-producer-app into a new topic and than feed
>>> your Streams app from this new topic -- you also need to update all your
>>> upstream producers to write to the new topic.
>>>
>>> Thus, if you want to fail fast, you can still do this. And after you
>>> detected and fixed the bad producer you might just reconfigure your app
>>> to skip bad records until it reaches the good part of the data.
>>> Afterwards, you could redeploy with fail-fast again.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus, for this pattern, I actually don't see any reason why to stop the
>>> Streams app at all. If you have a callback, and use the callback to
>>> raise an alert (and maybe get the bad data into a bad record queue), it
>>> will not take longer to identify and stop the "bad" producer. But for
>>> this case, you have zero downtime for your Streams app.
>>>
>>> This seems to be much simpler. Or do I miss anything?
>>>
>>>
>>> Having said this, I agree that the "threshold based callback" might be
>>> questionable. But as you argue for strict "fail-fast", I want to argue
>>> that this must not always be the best pattern to apply and that the
>>> overall KIP idea is super useful from my point of view.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/3/17 11:57 AM, Jan Filipiak wrote:
>>>> Could not agree more!
>>>>
>>>> But then I think the easiest is still: print exception and die.
>>>> From there on its the easiest way forward: fix, redeploy, start =>
>>>> done
>>>>
>>>> All the other ways to recover a pipeline that was processing partially
>>>> all the time
>>>> and suddenly went over a "I cant take it anymore" threshold is not
>>>> straight forward IMO.
>>>>
>>>> How to find the offset, when it became to bad when it is not the latest
>>>> commited one?
>>>> How to reset there? with some reasonable stuff in your rockses?
>>>>
>>>> If one would do the following. The continuing Handler would measure for
>>>> a threshold and
>>>> would terminate after a certain threshold has passed (per task). Then
>>>> one can use offset commit/ flush intervals
>>>> to make reasonable assumption of how much is slipping by + you get an
>>>> easy recovery when it gets to bad
>>>> + you could also account for "in processing" records.
>>>>
>>>> Setting this threshold to zero would cover all cases with 1
>>>> implementation. It is still beneficial to have it pluggable
>>>>
>>>> Again CRC-Errors are the only bad pills we saw in production for now.
>>>>
>>>> Best Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02.06.2017 17:37, Jay Kreps wrote:
>>>>> Jan, I agree with you philosophically. I think one practical challenge
>>>>> has
>>>>> to do with data formats. Many people use untyped events, so there is
>>>>> simply
>>>>> no guarantee on the form of the input. E.g. many companies use JSON
>>>>> without
>>>>> any kind of schema so it becomes very hard to assert anything about
>>>>> the
>>>>> input which makes these programs very fragile to the "one accidental
>>>>> message publication that creates an unsolvable problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> For that reason I do wonder if limiting to just serialization actually
>>>>> gets
>>>>> you a useful solution. For JSON it will help with the problem of
>>>>> non-parseable JSON, but sounds like it won't help in the case where
>>>>> the
>>>>> JSON is well-formed but does not have any of the fields you expect and
>>>>> depend on for your processing. I expect the reason for limiting the
>>>>> scope
>>>>> is it is pretty hard to reason about correctness for anything that
>>>>> stops in
>>>>> the middle of processing an operator DAG?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Jay
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Jan Filipiak
>>>>> <jan.filip...@trivago.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO your doing it wrong then. + building to much support into the
>>>>>> kafka
>>>>>> eco system is very counterproductive in fostering a happy userbase
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02.06.2017 13:15, Damian Guy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jan, you have a choice to Fail fast if you want. This is about
>>>>>>> giving
>>>>>>> people options and there are times when you don't want to fail fast.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 at 11:00 Jan Filipiak <jan.filip...@trivago.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>>> That greatly complicates monitoring. Fail Fast gives you that when
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> monitor only the lag of all your apps
>>>>>>>> you are completely covered. With that sort of new application
>>>>>>>> Monitoring
>>>>>>>> is very much more complicated as
>>>>>>>> you know need to monitor fail % of some special apps aswell. In my
>>>>>>>> opinion that is a huge downside already.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2.
>>>>>>>> using a schema regerstry like Avrostuff it might not even be the
>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>> that is broken, it might be just your app
>>>>>>>> unable to fetch a schema it needs now know. Maybe you got
>>>>>>>> partitioned
>>>>>>>> away from that registry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. When you get alerted because of to high fail percentage. what
>>>>>>>> are the
>>>>>>>> steps you gonna do?
>>>>>>>> shut it down to buy time. fix the problem. spend way to much
>>>>>>>> time to
>>>>>>>> find a good reprocess offset.
>>>>>>>> Your timewindows are in bad shape anyways, and you pretty much
>>>>>>>> lost.
>>>>>>>> This routine is nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dead letter queues would be the worst possible addition to the
>>>>>>>> kafka
>>>>>>>> toolkit that I can think of. It just doesn't fit the architecture
>>>>>>>> of having clients falling behind is a valid option.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Further. I mentioned already the only bad pill ive seen so far
>>>>>>>> is crc
>>>>>>>> errors. any plans for those?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best Jan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 02.06.2017 11:34, Damian Guy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree with what Matthias has said w.r.t failing fast. There are
>>>>>>>>> plenty
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> times when you don't want to fail-fast and must attempt to make
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The dead-letter queue is exactly for these circumstances. Of
>>>>>>>>> course if
>>>>>>>>> every record is failing, then you probably do want to give up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 at 07:56 Matthias J. Sax
>>>>>>>>> <matth...@confluent.io>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First a meta comment. KIP discussion should take place on the dev
>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>> -- if user list is cc'ed please make sure to reply to both lists.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for making the scope of the KIP clear. Makes a lot of
>>>>>>>>> sense to
>>>>>>>>>> focus on deserialization exceptions for now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With regard to corrupted state stores, would it make sense to
>>>>>>>>>> fail a
>>>>>>>>>> task and wipe out the store to repair it via recreation from the
>>>>>>>>>> changelog? That's of course a quite advance pattern, but I
>>>>>>>>>> want to
>>>>>>>>>> bring
>>>>>>>>>> it up to design the first step in a way such that we can get
>>>>>>>>>> there (if
>>>>>>>>>> we think it's a reasonable idea).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I also want to comment about fail fast vs making progress. I
>>>>>>>>>> think that
>>>>>>>>>> fail-fast must not always be the best option. The scenario I
>>>>>>>>>> have in
>>>>>>>>>> mind is like this: you got a bunch of producers that feed the
>>>>>>>>>> Streams
>>>>>>>>>> input topic. Most producers work find, but maybe one producer
>>>>>>>>>> miss
>>>>>>>>>> behaves and the data it writes is corrupted. You might not even
>>>>>>>>>> be able
>>>>>>>>>> to recover this lost data at any point -- thus, there is no
>>>>>>>>>> reason to
>>>>>>>>>> stop processing but you just skip over those records. Of
>>>>>>>>>> course, you
>>>>>>>>>> need to fix the root cause, and thus you need to alert (either
>>>>>>>>>> via logs
>>>>>>>>>> of the exception handler directly) and you need to start to
>>>>>>>>>> investigate
>>>>>>>>>> to find the bad producer, shut it down and fix it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here the dead letter queue comes into place. From my
>>>>>>>>>> understanding, the
>>>>>>>>>> purpose of this feature is solely enable post debugging. I don't
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>> those record would be fed back at any point in time (so I don't
>>>>>>>>>> see any
>>>>>>>>>> ordering issue -- a skipped record, with this regard, is just
>>>>>>>>>> "fully
>>>>>>>>>> processed"). Thus, the dead letter queue should actually
>>>>>>>>>> encode the
>>>>>>>>>> original records metadata (topic, partition offset etc) to enable
>>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>> debugging. I guess, this might also be possible if you just log
>>>>>>>>>> the bad
>>>>>>>>>> records, but it would be harder to access (you first must find
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> Streams instance that did write the log and extract the
>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> there). Reading it from topic is much simpler.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I also want to mention the following. Assume you have such a
>>>>>>>>>> topic with
>>>>>>>>>> some bad records and some good records. If we always
>>>>>>>>>> fail-fast, it's
>>>>>>>>>> going to be super hard to process the good data. You would
>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>>> an extra app that copied the data into a new topic filtering
>>>>>>>>>> out the
>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>> records (or apply the map() workaround withing stream). So I
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>> that failing fast is most likely the best option in production is
>>>>>>>>>> necessarily, true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or do you think there are scenarios, for which you can recover
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> corrupted records successfully? And even if this is possible, it
>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>> be a case for reprocessing instead of failing the whole
>>>>>>>>>> application?
>>>>>>>>>> Also, if you think you can "repair" a corrupted record, should
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> handler allow to return a "fixed" record? This would solve the
>>>>>>>>>> ordering
>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/17 1:47 AM, Michael Noll wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your work on this KIP, Eno -- much appreciated!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - I think it would help to improve the KIP by adding an
>>>>>>>>>>> end-to-end
>>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>> example that demonstrates, with the DSL and with the
>>>>>>>>>>> Processor API,
>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> user would write a simple application that would then be
>>>>>>>>>>> augmented
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> proposed KIP changes to handle exceptions. It should also
>>>>>>>>>>> become much
>>>>>>>>>>> clearer then that e.g. the KIP would lead to different code
>>>>>>>>>>> paths for
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> happy case and any failure scenarios.
>>>>>>>>>>> - Do we have sufficient information available to make informed
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> decisions
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> what to do next? For example, do we know in which part of the
>>>>>>>>>>> topology
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> record failed? `ConsumerRecord` gives us access to topic,
>>>>>>>>>>> partition,
>>>>>>>>>>> offset, timestamp, etc., but what about topology-related
>>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> what is the associated state store, if any)?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Only partly on-topic for the scope of this KIP, but this is
>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> bigger picture: This KIP would give users the option to send
>>>>>>>>>>> corrupted
>>>>>>>>>>> records to dead letter queue (quarantine topic). But, what
>>>>>>>>>>> pattern
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> we advocate to process such a dead letter queue then, e.g. how to
>>>>>>>>> allow
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> retries with backoff ("If the first record in the dead letter
>>>>>>>>>>> queue
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> fails
>>>>>>>>> again, then try the second record for the time being and go back
>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>> first record at a later time"). Jay and Jan already alluded to
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ordering
>>>>>>>>> problems that will be caused by dead letter queues. As I said,
>>>>>>>>> retries
>>>>>>>>>>> might be out of scope but perhaps the implications should be
>>>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> possible?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I wrote the text below before reaching the point in the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that this KIP's scope will be limited to exceptions in the
>>>>>>>>>>> category of
>>>>>>>>>>> poison pills / deserialization errors. But since Jay brought up
>>>>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> code
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> errors again, I decided to include it again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------snip----------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> A meta comment: I am not sure about this split between the
>>>>>>>>>>> code for
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> happy path (e.g. map/filter/... in the DSL) from the failure
>>>>>>>>>>> path
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (using
>>>>>>>>> exception handlers). In Scala, for example, we can do:
>>>>>>>>>>> scala> val computation = scala.util.Try(1 / 0)
>>>>>>>>>>> computation: scala.util.Try[Int] =
>>>>>>>>>>> Failure(java.lang.ArithmeticException: / by zero)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> scala> computation.getOrElse(42)
>>>>>>>>>>> res2: Int = 42
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another example with Scala's pattern matching, which is
>>>>>>>>>>> similar to
>>>>>>>>>>> `KStream#branch()`:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> computation match {
>>>>>>>>>>> case scala.util.Success(x) => x * 5
>>>>>>>>>>> case scala.util.Failure(_) => 42
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (The above isn't the most idiomatic way to handle this in Scala,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> not the point I'm trying to make here.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hence the question I'm raising here is: Do we want to have an
>>>>>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> code "the happy path", and then have a different code path for
>>>>>>>>>>> failures
>>>>>>>>>>> (using exceptions and handlers); or should we treat both
>>>>>>>>>>> Success and
>>>>>>>>>>> Failure in the same way?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think the failure/exception handling approach (as proposed in
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> KIP)
>>>>>>>>> is well-suited for errors in the category of deserialization
>>>>>>>>> problems
>>>>>>>>>> aka
>>>>>>>>> poison pills, partly because the (default) serdes are defined
>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>>>> configuration (explicit serdes however are defined through API
>>>>>>>>>>> calls).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, I'm not yet convinced that the failure/exception
>>>>>>>>>>> handling
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> is the best idea for user code exceptions, e.g. if you fail to
>>>>>>>>>>> guard
>>>>>>>>>>> against NPE in your lambdas or divide a number by zero.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> scala> val stream = Seq(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
>>>>>>>>>>> stream: Seq[Int] = List(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> // Here: Fallback to a sane default when encountering
>>>>>>>>>>> failed
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> records
>>>>>>>>> scala> stream.map(x => Try(1/(3 - x))).flatMap(t =>
>>>>>>>>>>> Seq(t.getOrElse(42)))
>>>>>>>>>>> res19: Seq[Int] = List(0, 1, 42, -1, 0)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> // Here: Skip over failed records
>>>>>>>>>>> scala> stream.map(x => Try(1/(3 - x))).collect{ case
>>>>>>>>>>> Success(s)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> => s
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> res20: Seq[Int] = List(0, 1, -1, 0)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The above is more natural to me than using error handlers to
>>>>>>>>>>> define
>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> deal with failed records (here, the value `3` causes an
>>>>>>>>>>> arithmetic
>>>>>>>>>>> exception). Again, it might help the KIP if we added an
>>>>>>>>>>> end-to-end
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> for such user code errors.
>>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------snip----------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Jan Filipiak <
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> jan.filip...@trivago.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jay,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Eno mentioned that he will narrow down the scope to only
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ConsumerRecord
>>>>>>>>> deserialisation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am working with Database Changelogs only. I would really not
>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>> a dead letter queue or something
>>>>>>>>>>>> similliar. how am I expected to get these back in order. Just
>>>>>>>>>>>> grind
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> hold an call me on the weekend. I'll fix it
>>>>>>>>>>>> then in a few minutes rather spend 2 weeks ordering dead
>>>>>>>>>>>> letters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (where
>>>>>>>>> reprocessing might be even the faster fix)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29.05.2017 20:23, Jay Kreps wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - I think we should hold off on retries unless we have
>>>>>>>>>>>> worked
>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> full usage pattern, people can always implement their
>>>>>>>>>>> own. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> the idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you send the message to some kind of dead
>>>>>>>>>>>>> letter queue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> replay these later. This obviously destroys all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> guarantees
>>>>>>>>> we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> working hard to provide right now, which may be okay.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
