You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@kafka.apache.org by Vahid S Hashemian <va...@us.ibm.com> on 2016/08/02 19:09:35 UTC

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-54 Sticky Partition Assignment Strategy

I would like to revive this thread and ask for additional feedback on this 
KIP.

There have already been some feedback, mostly in favor, plus some concern 
about the value gain considering the complexity and the semantics; i.e. 
how the eventually revoked assignments need to be processed in the 
onPartitionsAssigned() callback, and not in onPartitionsRevoked().

If it helps, I could also send a note to users mailing list about this KIP 
and ask for their feedback.
I could also put the KIP up for a vote if that is expected at this point.

Thanks.
--Vahid

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-54 Sticky Partition Assignment Strategy

Posted by Vahid S Hashemian <va...@us.ibm.com>.

Thanks Andrew for your feedback and interest on this feature.

If there is no further feedback on this KIP (and no objection) I'll start 
the voting process soon.

Thanks.
--Vahid




From:   Andrew Coates <bi...@gmail.com>
To:     dev@kafka.apache.org
Date:   08/10/2016 12:38 AM
Subject:        Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-54 Sticky Partition Assignment Strategy



I'm still very interested in seeing this KIP progress ...
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 20:09, Vahid S Hashemian <va...@us.ibm.com>
wrote:

> I would like to revive this thread and ask for additional feedback on 
this
> KIP.
>
> There have already been some feedback, mostly in favor, plus some 
concern
> about the value gain considering the complexity and the semantics; i.e.
> how the eventually revoked assignments need to be processed in the
> onPartitionsAssigned() callback, and not in onPartitionsRevoked().
>
> If it helps, I could also send a note to users mailing list about this 
KIP
> and ask for their feedback.
> I could also put the KIP up for a vote if that is expected at this 
point.
>
> Thanks.
> --Vahid
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-54 Sticky Partition Assignment Strategy

Posted by Andrew Coates <bi...@gmail.com>.

I'm still very interested in seeing this KIP progress ...
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 at 20:09, Vahid S Hashemian <va...@us.ibm.com>
wrote:

> I would like to revive this thread and ask for additional feedback on this
> KIP.
>
> There have already been some feedback, mostly in favor, plus some concern
> about the value gain considering the complexity and the semantics; i.e.
> how the eventually revoked assignments need to be processed in the
> onPartitionsAssigned() callback, and not in onPartitionsRevoked().
>
> If it helps, I could also send a note to users mailing list about this KIP
> and ask for their feedback.
> I could also put the KIP up for a vote if that is expected at this point.
>
> Thanks.
> --Vahid
>
>
>