kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk>
Subject Re: [VOTE] KIP-266: Add TimeoutException for KafkaConsumer#position
Date Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:43:14 GMT
Sounds good to me.

Ismael

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:38 PM Jason Gustafson <jason@confluent.io> wrote:

> Hey All,
>
> I wanted to get to some closure on this issue before the release. I think
> the config `default.api.timeout.ms` sounds good to me. Guozhang and I had
> actually discussed using this name before we saw Colin's comment.
>
> As for the default value, the main reason that the current `
> request.timeout.ms` is so high for the consumer is that we have to handle
> the special case of the JoinGroup, which can currently sit in purgatory for
> as long as `max.poll.interval.ms`. I'd like to propose making that a
> special case so that the default value can be changed to something more
> reasonable. In other words, the timeout for JoinGroup will be tied to `
> max.poll.interval.ms` direction and we will use `request.timeout.ms` for
> everything else. For the default values, I would suggest 30s for `
> request.timeout.ms` and 60s for `default.api.timeout.ms`.
>
> How does that sound?
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Colin McCabe <cmccabe@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 6, 2018, at 13:10, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > The reason that I'm hesitant to use the term "timeout" is that it's
> being
> > > over-used for multiple semantics: request RPC timeout, consumer session
> > > heartbeat liveness "timeout", and API blocking timeout. We can argue
> that
> > > in English both of them are indeed called a "timeout" value, but
> > personally
> > > I'm afraid for normal users having the same word `timeout` would be
> > > confusing, and hence I'm proposing for using a slight different term.
> >
> > Hmm.  I can see why you want to have a different-sounding name from the
> > existing timeouts.  However, I think it could be less clear to omit the
> > word timeout.  If your operation times out, and you get a
> TimeoutException,
> > what configuration do you raise?  The timeout.  If the configuration name
> > doesn't tell you that it's a timeout, it's harder to understand what
> needs
> > to be changed.
> >
> > For example, if "group.min.session.timeout.ms" was called something
> like "
> > group.min.session.block.ms" or "group.min.session.heartbeat.ms", it
> would
> > not be as clear.
> >
> > > Comparing with adding a new config, I'm actually more concerned about
> > > leveraging the request.timeout value for a default blocking timeout,
> > since
> > > the default value is hard to decide, since for different blocking
> calls,
> > it
> > > may have different rpc round trips behind the scene, so simply setting
> it
> > > as request.timeout + a delta may not be always good enough.
> >
> > Yes, I agree that we need a new configuration key.  I don't think we
> > should try to hard-code this.
> >
> > I think we should just bite the bullet and create a new configuration key
> > like "default.api.timeout.ms" that sets the default timeout for API
> > calls.  The hard part is adding the new configuration in a way that
> doesn't
> > disrupt existing configurations.
> >
> > There are at least a few cases to worry about:
> >
> > 1. Someone uses the default (pretty long) timeouts for everything.
> > 2. Someone has configured a short request.timeout.ms, in an effort to
> see
> > failures more quickly
> > 3. Someone has configured a very long (or maybe infinite)
> > request.timeout.ms
> >
> > Case #2 is probably the one which is hardest to support well.  We could
> > probably do it with logic like this:
> >
> > A. If default.api.timeout.ms is explicitly set, we use that value.
> > otherwise...
> > B. If request.timeout.ms is longer than 2 minutes, we set
> > default.api.timeout.ms to request.timeout.ms + 1500.  otherwise...
> >  we set default.api.timeout.ms to request.timeout.ms
> >
> > best,
> > Colin
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Guozhang
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I see where the 0.5 in your previous response came about.
> > > >
> > > > The reason I wrote 'request.timeout.ms + 15000' was that I treat
> this
> > > > value
> > > > in place of the default.block.ms
> > > > According to your earlier description:
> > > >
> > > > bq. request.timeout.ms controls something different: the amount of
> > time
> > > > we're willing to wait for an RPC to complete.
> > > >
> > > > Basically we're in agreement. It is just that figuring out good
> > default is
> > > > non-trivial.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Colin McCabe <cmccabe@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, at 16:35, Ted Yu wrote:
> > > > > > bq. could probably come up with a good default
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's the difficult part.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > bq. max(1000, 0.5 * request.timeout.ms)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking at some existing samples:
> > > > > > In tests/kafkatest/tests/connect/templates/connect-distributed.
> > > > properties
> > > > > ,
> > > > > > we have:
> > > > > >   request.timeout.ms=30000
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Isn't the above formula putting an upper bound 15000 for the RPC
> > > > timeout
> > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Correct.  It would put a 15 second default on the RPC timeout in
> this
> > > > > case.  If that's too short, the user has the option to change it.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we feel that 15 seconds is too short, we could put a floor of 30
> > > > > seconds or whatever on the RPC timeout, instead of 1 second.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By fixed duration, I meant something like
> > > > > >   request.timeout.ms + 15000
> > > > >
> > > > > The RPC timeout should be shorter than the request timeout, so that
> > we
> > > > get
> > > > > multiple tries if the RPC hangs due to network issues.  It should
> > not be
> > > > > longer.
> > > > >
> > > > > best,
> > > > > Colin
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Colin McCabe <cmccabe@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think it can be fixed.  The RPC duration is something
> > that
> > > > you
> > > > > > > might reasonably want to tune.  For example, if it's too low,
> you
> > > > > might not
> > > > > > > be able to make progress at all on a heavily loaded server.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We could probably come up with a good default, however.
> > > > > rpc.timeout.ms
> > > > > > > could be set to something like
> > > > > > > max(1000, 0.5 * request.timeout.ms)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > best,
> > > > > > > Colin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, at 16:21, Ted Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > > bq. we must make the API timeout longer than the RPC timeout
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree with the above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How about adding a fixed duration on top of
> request.timeout.ms
> > ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Colin McCabe <
> > cmccabe@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As Jason noted earlier, request.timeout.ms controls
> > something
> > > > > > > different:
> > > > > > > > > the amount of time we're willing to wait for an RPC to
> > complete.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Empirically, RPCs sometimes hang for a long time.  If the
> API
> > > > > timeout
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > the same as the RPC timeout, we are not robust against this
> > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > condition.  The whole call fails rather than trying another
> > > > server
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > a new
> > > > > > > > > socket.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In order to fix this, we must make the API timeout longer
> > than
> > > > the
> > > > > RPC
> > > > > > > > > timeout.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, we have a lot of users who have been trained to
> use
> > > > > > > > > request.timeout.ms to make their clients time out earlier.
> > If
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > > introduce a new config to do this instead, it's kind of a
> > > > breaking
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > for them.  Perhaps we should go the other direction and
> > create a
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > configuration like rpc.timeout.ms to do what
> > request.timeout.ms
> > > > is
> > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > now.  Then request.timeout.ms can become what users
> already
> > > > think
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is:
> > > > > > > > > the timeout for their API calls.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > best,
> > > > > > > > > Colin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, at 15:29, Ted Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > bq. we were already doing with request.timeout.ms
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I would vote for using existing config.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Any new config parameter needs to go thru long process of
> > > > > digestion:
> > > > > > > > > > documentation, etc in order for users to understand and
> > > > > familiarize.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The existing config would have lower mismatch of
> impedance.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:17 PM, Jason Gustafson <
> > > > > jason@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure I understand why
> we
> > > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > avoid the
> > > > > > > > > > > term "timeout." Semantically, that's what it is. If we
> > don't
> > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > timeout config, we could avoid it and hard-code a
> > reasonable
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > or try
> > > > > > > > > > > to wrap the behavior into one of the other timeouts
> > (which is
> > > > > sort
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > we were already doing with request.timeout.ms). But
> I'm
> > not
> > > > > too
> > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > calling it something else addresses the problem.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -Jason
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Dhruvil Shah <
> > > > > dhruvil@confluent.io
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that using `default.timeout.ms` could cause
> > > > > confusion
> > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > already have other timeout configurations in the
> > consumer.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for using `default.block.ms`.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dhruvil
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Bill Bejeck <
> > > > > bbejeck@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jason,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > At first, I thought the same name between the
> > producer
> > > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > consumer
> > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ideal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But your comment makes me realize consistent names
> > with
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > semantics
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is even more confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm +1 for not using `max.block.ms`.  I like
> > Guozhang's
> > > > > > > > > suggestion of
> > > > > > > > > > > `
> > > > > > > > > > > > > default.block.ms` for the name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jason,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah I agree that "max.block.ms" makes people
> > thinking
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > producer's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > config with the same name, but their semantics
> are
> > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, I'm a bit concerned with the
> > reusing
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > term
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > `timeout` as we already have `session.timeout.ms
> `
> > and
> > > > `
> > > > > > > > > > > > > request.timeout.ms`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in ConsumerConfig.. How about using the name `
> > > > > > > > > default.api.block.ms`
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > simply `default.block.ms`?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Jason Gustafson <
> > > > > > > > > jason@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey All,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One more minor follow-up. As I was reviewing
> the
> > > > change
> > > > > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > above,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > felt the name `max.block.ms` was a little bit
> > > > > misleading
> > > > > > > > > since it
> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > applies to methods which do not have an
> explicit
> > > > > timeout. A
> > > > > > > > > clearer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > given its usage might be `default.timeout.ms`.
> > It is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > timeout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for any blocking API which does not have a
> > timeout.
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > > leaning
> > > > > > > > > > > > toward
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > using this name since the current one seems
> > likely to
> > > > > cause
> > > > > > > > > > > > confusion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Dong Lin <
> > > > > > > lindong28@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! I am in favor of the
> > option 1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Jason
> > Gustafson <
> > > > > > > > > > > > jason@confluent.io
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks everyone for the feedback. I've
> > updated
> > > > the
> > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KAFKA-6979.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Guozhang
> > Wang <
> > > > > > > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Jason. I'm in favor of option 1 as
> > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Bill
> > Bejeck <
> > > > > > > > > > > > bbejeck@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For what it's worth I'm +1 on Option 1
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > timeout.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to reasons outlined above
> by
> > > > > Jason, I
> > > > > > > > > think it
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason about consumer behavior (with
> > respect
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > blocking)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration and default value aligned
> > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > producer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Bill
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Ismael
> > Juma
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good to me,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:40 PM
> Jason
> > > > > Gustafson
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jason@confluent.io
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps one minute? That is the
> > default
> > > > > used
> > > > > > > by the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > producer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:50 AM,
> > Ismael
> > > > > Juma <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Option 1 sounds good to me
> provided
> > > > that
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > come
> > > > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default. What would you suggest?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 9:41 AM
> > Jason
> > > > > > > Gustafson <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jason@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Everyone,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There remains some
> inconsistency
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > timeout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consumer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > APIs which do not accept a
> > timeout.
> > > > > Some of
> > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > block
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > forever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position()) and some of them
> use
> > > > > > > > > > > request.timeout.ms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > parititonsFor()).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we'd probably all agree
> > that
> > > > > > > blocking
> > > > > > > > > > > forever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behavior and using
> > > > request.timeout.ms
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > always
> > > > > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hack
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > controls a separate concern. I
> > think
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > basically
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > address this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We can add max.block.ms to
> > match
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > producer
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > timeout when a timeout is not
> > > > > explicitly
> > > > > > > > > provided.
> > > > > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indefinite blocking behavior
> and
> > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > > conflating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > request.timeout.ms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We can deprecate the methods
> > which
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > accept
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > timeout.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm leaning toward the first
> > solution
> > > > > > > because I
> > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > push
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to specifying timeouts through
> > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Jay's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > original argument). I think the
> > > > > overloads
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advanced
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage (e.g. in kafka streams),
> > but we
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > give
> > > > > > > > > > > > users
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > option
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable default behavior.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that sounds ok, I'd propose
> > we add
> > > > > it to
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gives users an easy way to get
> > the
> > > > > benefit
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improvements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP without changing any code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 7:58
> PM,
> > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > Yu <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yohan.richard.yu@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With 3 binding votes and 6
> > > > > non-binding,
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > accepted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for participating.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 2:35
> > AM,
> > > > > Edoardo
> > > > > > > > > Comar <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edocomar@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 May 2018 at 10:29,
> > zhenya
> > > > > Sun <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > token01@126.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 non-binding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 在
> > > > 2018年5月10日,下午5:19,Manikumar <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > manikumar.reddy@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 写道:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at
> > 2:33
> > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > > Mickael
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Maison <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mickael.maison@gmail.com
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 (non binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, May 10, 2018
> at
> > 9:39
> > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > > Rajini
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sivaram
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rajinisivaram@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hi Richard, Thanks
> for
> > the
> > > > > KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> +1 (binding)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Rajini
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018
> at
> > > > 10:54
> > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Wang
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wangguoz@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> +1 from me, thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018
> at
> > > > > 10:46 AM,
> > > > > > > > > Jason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gustafson <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jason@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks for the KIP,
> > +1
> > > > > > > (binding).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> One small
> > correction: the
> > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > mentions
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > close()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> deprecated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> we do not want to
> do
> > this
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > needed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Closeable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> interface.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> We only want to
> > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > close(long,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > TimeUnit)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > favor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> close(Duration).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> -Jason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, May 8, 2018
> > at
> > > > > 12:43
> > > > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > khaireddine
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rezgui <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > khaireddine120@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> +1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 2018-05-07 20:35
> > > > GMT+01:00
> > > > > > > Bill
> > > > > > > > > > > Bejeck <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bbejeck@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> +1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Bill
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, May 4,
> > 2018 at
> > > > > 7:21
> > > > > > > PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yu
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > yohan.richard.yu@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi all, I would
> > like
> > > > to
> > > > > bump
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> KIP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> appears to be
> > reaching
> > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > > > conclusion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 15,
> > 2018
> > > > at
> > > > > > > 3:30 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yu
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > yohan.richard.yu@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Since there
> does
> > not
> > > > > seem
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > be too
> > > > > > > > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> KIP-266, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> starting a
> voting
> > > > > thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Here is the
> link
> > to
> > > > > > > KIP-266 for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reference:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confluence/pages/viewpage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > action?pageId=75974886
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Recently, I
> have
> > made
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reiterate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> included
> > > > > KafkaConsumer's
> > > > > > > > > > > commitSync,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> poll, and
> > committed
> > > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > KIP. (we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> TimeoutException
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to them as
> well,
> > in a
> > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > manner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> to what we will
> > be
> > > > > doing
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > position())
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Richard Yu
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Ingénieur en
> > > > informatique
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "When the people fear their
> > > > > government,
> > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tyranny;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > government fears the
> people,
> > > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > liberty."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Thomas
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jefferson]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- Guozhang
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message