Skip to content

time based checkpointing for Kafka Indexing Service#5255

Merged
b-slim merged 5 commits intoapache:masterfrom
pjain1:time_based_cp
Feb 16, 2018
Merged

time based checkpointing for Kafka Indexing Service#5255
b-slim merged 5 commits intoapache:masterfrom
pjain1:time_based_cp

Conversation

@pjain1
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@pjain1 pjain1 commented Jan 12, 2018

Resolves #4815 (comment)

@pjain1 pjain1 requested a review from dclim January 12, 2018 23:35
@himanshug himanshug added this to the 0.13.0 milestone Jan 24, 2018
@jihoonson
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Would you add some tests?

@pjain1
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

pjain1 commented Jan 26, 2018

@jihoonson added

@dclim
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

dclim commented Jan 30, 2018

👍

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this mean that time-based intermediate handoff is effectively disabled if it is null? What do you think about disabling it explicitly if it's null?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, please check the formatting.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@pjain1 pjain1 Jan 30, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed formatting and yes it means the intermediate handoff is effectively disabled. I didn't wanted to have another flag check so that's why just setting it to a long period. If you see any issues with this then I can change.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think, from the user perspective, it looks not clear if they don't want to use this feature. If someone doesn't want to use it, then he/she might be confused what value should be set and should calculate how long period should be set to turn off this feature.
If we support turning it off explicitly in some ways, then it will be more clear for users. I think this is more valuable even though we need to add some more flag checks. Finally, I think it's enough if null intermediateHandoffPeriod means disabling time-based intermediate handoff. What do you think?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@pjain1 pjain1 Jan 31, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about just mentioning in the docs that null is default value and it means disabled. Internally, the null can be translated to a very long Period effectively disabling the intermediate handoff, does this sounds good ? Or should I introduce an explicit flag ?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it would be nice if what the doc says and how the code actually works matches. If you think it's better to keep the current implementation, the doc also should say that the default intermediateHandoffPeriod is Integer.MAX_VALUE days as it currently does.

I don't have a strong feeling about this.

@pjain1
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

pjain1 commented Feb 16, 2018

@jihoonson any more comments ?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jihoonson jihoonson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry for the late review. Looks good to me.

@b-slim b-slim merged commit fba13d8 into apache:master Feb 16, 2018
@pjain1 pjain1 deleted the time_based_cp branch February 16, 2018 16:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants