kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Shannon <christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] URIs on Producer and Consumer
Date Tue, 03 Oct 2017 13:23:43 GMT
I think this would be useful as a secondary way to configure.  If others
agree then you can write up a KIP and it can be discussed in more detail.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Maybe I didn't make the message clear enough...
>
> Would using an URI to the constructor (in addition to the properties)
> help the API, or anyone see a reason to not do it?
>
> KafkaConsumer consumer = new
> KafkaConsumer<>("tcp://localhost:9999?receive.buffer.bytes=-2", new
> ByteArrayDeserializer(), new ByteArrayDeserializer());
>
> I could send a Pull Request for that. The framework I would write
> would validate if the parameters are valid or not.
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Clebert Suconic
> <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > At ActiveMQ and ActiveMQ Artemis, ConnectionFactories have an
> > interesting feature where you can pass parameters through an URI.
> >
> > I was looking at Producer and Consumer APIs, and these two classes are
> > using a method that I considered old for Artemis resembling HornetQ:
> >
> > Instead of passing a Properties (aka HashMaps), users would be able to
> > create a Consumer or Producer by simply doing:
> >
> > new Consumer("tcp::/host:port?properties=values;properties=
> values...etc");
> >
> > Example:
> >
> >
> > Instead of the following:
> >
> > Map<String, Object> config = new HashMap<>();
> > config.put(ConsumerConfig.BOOTSTRAP_SERVERS_CONFIG, "localhost:9999");
> > config.put(ConsumerConfig.RECEIVE_BUFFER_CONFIG, -2);
> > new KafkaConsumer<>(config, new ByteArrayDeserializer(), new
> > ByteArrayDeserializer());
> >
> >
> >
> > Someone could do
> >
> > new KafkaConsumer<>("tcp://localhost:9999?receive.buffer.bytes=-2",
> > new ByteArrayDeserializer(), new ByteArrayDeserializer());
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't know if that little API improvement would be welcomed? I would be
> > able to send a Pull Request but I don't want to do it if that wouldn't
> > be welcomed in the first place:
> >
> >
> > Just an idea...  let me know if that is welcomed or not.
> >
> > If so I can forward the discussion into how I would implement it.
>
>
>
> --
> Clebert Suconic
>

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