Reader API for C++ client #717

merlimat · 2017-08-27T19:17:20Z

Motivation

Implement the Reader API also for C++ client library

merlimat · 2017-08-27T19:25:31Z

pulsar-common/src/main/proto/PulsarApi.proto

-	required uint64 ledgerId = 1;
-	required uint64 entryId  = 2;
+	required int64 ledgerId = 1;
+	required int64 entryId  = 2;


This change is safe as it doesn't change the encoding on the wire, just the type used in C++. In Java it would anyway be a long with no difference.
This is required to pass -1 as special values.

rdhabalia · 2017-08-28T17:46:23Z

managed-ledger/src/main/java/org/apache/bookkeeper/mledger/impl/NonDurableCursorImpl.java

@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
            PositionImpl startCursorPosition) {
        super(bookkeeper, config, ledger, cursorName);

-        if (startCursorPosition == null || startCursorPosition.equals(PositionImpl.latest)) {
+        if (startCursorPosition == null || startCursorPosition.getLedgerId() == PositionImpl.latest.getLedgerId()) {


is there any specific reason to not compare the position(ledgerId and entryId)?

The problem comes from C++ client lib. The entry id in MessageId is 48 bits only (which by itself it's more than enough), and for PositionImpl.latest we're using Long.max() for both ledgerId and entryId.

I'll be adding comments for these changes

rdhabalia · 2017-08-28T18:34:37Z

pulsar-broker/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/broker/service/persistent/PersistentTopic.java

-            Position startPosition = new PositionImpl(msgId.getLedgerId(), msgId.getEntryId());
+            long ledgerId = msgId.getLedgerId();
+            long entryId = msgId.getEntryId();
+            if (msgId instanceof BatchMessageIdImpl) {


I think broker is batch-msg agnostic as it treats it as a normal msg (client manages batch-msg business) and it would be better to avoid introducing BatchMessageIdImpl at broker-side. Can't we always assign entryId= entryId-1 while creating NonDurableSubscription ?

Can't we always assign entryId= entryId-1 while creating NonDurableSubscription?

The problem is that you can have these 2 scenarios:

Without batching : startMessageId = (ledgerId, entryId). eg. (3, 4)

With batching : startMessageId = (ledgerId, entryId, batchIndex). eg. (3,4,5)

In the first case, it will mean that (3,4) was already consumed. So next message to be sent will be (3,5).

In the case of batching, (3,4,5) is the start message. With the old logic, the broker would start delivering at (3,5,0) while there might still be messages to read at (3,4,6)..

Without batching : startMessageId = (ledgerId, entryId). eg. (3, 4)

yes, I understand that batch-msg might not be consumed fully at client so, we need to go 1 msg back.
If we do the same for non-batch then (3,4) will be delivered again which will be duplicate. Is there an issue if broker delivers duplicate msg? because anyway for durable cursor, broker can deliver duplicate msg by reseting cursor-position at marDeletePosition. So, duplicate msg is the only conern to set entryId=entryId-1?

Well, the purpose of reader is to position exactly on the correct message :) That enables to avoid dups in the consuming side.

In any case, that is an issue even with the current Java reader. I have another PR to fix that as well.

rdhabalia · 2017-08-28T18:56:16Z

pulsar-client-cpp/include/pulsar/Reader.h

+     * @return ResultTimeout if the receive timeout was triggered
+     * @return ResultInvalidConfiguration if a message listener had been set in the configuration
+     */
+    Result readNext(Message& msg, int timeoutMs);


shouldn't we also add readNextAsync()?

We don't have yet merged the Consumer.receiveAsync() :) Once that's in, adding Reader.readNextAsync() will be trivial since it's just a wrapper.

jai1

So far the changes LGTM (minor comments) - will give it another round of review tomorrow before approving.

jai1 · 2017-08-28T18:09:14Z

managed-ledger/src/main/java/org/apache/bookkeeper/mledger/impl/NonDurableCursorImpl.java

@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
            PositionImpl startCursorPosition) {
        super(bookkeeper, config, ledger, cursorName);

-        if (startCursorPosition == null || startCursorPosition.equals(PositionImpl.latest)) {


If it is not too much work - can we move all java file changes as a part of a separate

Yes, I'm going to break it

jai1 · 2017-08-28T18:10:39Z

pulsar-client-cpp/include/pulsar/BatchMessageId.h

-    inline bool operator<(const BatchMessageId& mID) const;
-    inline bool operator<=(const BatchMessageId& mID) const;
- protected:
+    bool operator<(const BatchMessageId& other) const;


Wondering why we removed the inline.

Using std::tie to have 3 vars comparators so to not have any c++11 in headers. In general, we've kept all methods impl in .cc files.

jai1 · 2017-08-28T18:59:33Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/ConsumerImpl.cc

@@ -301,14 +315,33 @@ void ConsumerImpl::messageReceived(const ClientConnectionPtr& cnx, const proto::
 }

 // Zero Queue size is not supported with Batch Messages
-unsigned int ConsumerImpl::receiveIndividualMessagesFromBatch(Message& batchedMessage) {
+uint32_t ConsumerImpl::receiveIndividualMessagesFromBatch(const ClientConnectionPtr& cnx, Message& batchedMessage) {


At some point, I remember @msb-at-yahoo advising to refrain using uint32_t or any other data types from <stdint.h> unless we are serializing and passing the value over the wire.

Either way, I generally prefer explicit sizing to make it clear and also it's shorter than unsigned int :D

jai1 · 2017-08-28T19:11:01Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/ConsumerImpl.cc

+        }
+
+        // Regular path, append individual message to incoming messages queue
+        incomingMessages_.push(msg);
    }
    return batchSize;


We shouldn't be returning the batchSize since not all messages made it to incomingMessages_
Just return the number of messages added to the incomingMessages_ queue

Good point. I'll fix it.

jai1 · 2017-08-28T19:24:48Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/ReaderImpl.cc

+    const BatchMessageId& msgId = static_cast<const BatchMessageId&>(msg.getMessageId());
+
+    // Only acknowledge on the first message in the batch
+    if (msgId.batchIndex_ <= 0) {


Shouldn't we acknowledge on the last message of the batch since you clear the Receiver Queue on reconnect

It doesn't really makes a lot of difference (and it's easy to ack on the first rather than the last), because for the reader the acknowledge it's just an internal trick that enables us to track the "backlog" in the stats. Since the cursor is non-durable and the reader always specify where to start reading, there is no other meaning for the acks.

jai1 · 2017-08-28T19:27:14Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/ReaderImpl.cc

+        consumerConf.setConsumerName(readerConf_.getReaderName());
+    }
+
+    if (readerConf_.hasReaderListener()) {


A bit confused since the ReaderAPI has no method for acknowledging the message shouldn't we be calling acknowledgeIfNecessaryourselves before sending the message to ReaderListener.

Correct, I missed that

jai1 · 2017-08-28T19:28:50Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/ConsumerImpl.cc

+        // We can safely cast to 'BatchMessageId' since all the messages queued will have that type of message id,
+        // irrespective of whether they were part of a batch or not.
+        const MessageId& nextMessageId = static_cast<const BatchMessageId&>(nextMessageInQueue.getMessageId());
+        BatchMessageId previousMessageId(nextMessageId.ledgerId_, nextMessageId.entryId_ - 1);


So here you cast the BatchMessageId to MessageId again (i.e ignore the batchIndex) hence stand a risk of redelivering the message once the batch is redelivered

On the other hand if you maintain the batchIndex then you can't clear the unAckedMessageTracter and bathIndexTracker on reconnection.

That's actually a bug. Need to fix this

jai1 · 2017-08-28T19:30:25Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/ConsumerImpl.cc

+        const MessageId& nextMessageId = static_cast<const BatchMessageId&>(nextMessageInQueue.getMessageId());
+        BatchMessageId previousMessageId(nextMessageId.ledgerId_, nextMessageId.entryId_ - 1);
+        return Optional<BatchMessageId>::of(previousMessageId);
+    } else if (lastDequedMessage_.is_present()) {


return (lastDequedMessage_.is_present() ? lastDequedMessage_ : startMessageId_)

I prefer longer form with comments :)

jai1 · 2017-08-28T19:32:29Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/MessageId.cc

@@ -43,12 +52,59 @@ MessageId::MessageId(int64_t ledgerId, int64_t entryId)
     // consumer's partition is assigned to this partition
 }

+const MessageId& MessageId::earliest() {
+    static const BatchMessageId _earliest(-1, -1);


Just curious what does _varconvention mean I know that var_ is for private members.

I wasn't implying any convention. these are just locally defined static variables.

jai1 · 2017-08-28T19:44:20Z

pulsar-client-cpp/include/pulsar/MessageId.h

+    /**
+     * Serialize the message id into a binary string for storing
+     */
+    virtual void serialize(std::string& result) const;


When would we want to use the serialize and deserialize API??

When using reader, you need to be able to store the message id somewhere (since you don't have a durable cursor, like in case of subscriptions/consumers).

Then you can deserialize that message id and use it to create a new Reader starting from a particular message.

rdhabalia · 2017-08-28T20:35:38Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/Commands.cc

@@ -187,6 +191,16 @@ SharedBuffer Commands::newSubscribe(const std::string& topic, const std::string&
    subscribe->set_consumer_id(consumerId);
    subscribe->set_request_id(requestId);
    subscribe->set_consumer_name(consumerName);
+    subscribe->set_durable(subscriptionMode == SubscriptionModeDurable);
+    if (startMessageId.is_present()) {
+        MessageIdData& messageIdData = *subscribe->mutable_start_message_id();


not sure, but subscribe is already pointer so, do we need pointer *subscribe-> again?

subscribe->mutable_start_message_id() returns a MessageIdData* pointer. So the * applies to that, and not to subscribe

rdhabalia · 2017-08-28T20:49:53Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/ConsumerImpl.cc

+                LOG_DEBUG(
+                        getName() << "Ignoring message from before the startMessageId" << msg.getMessageId());
+                increaseAvailablePermits(cnx);
+                continue;


batchSize--?

Yes, Jai also pointed out, will fix that

rdhabalia · 2017-08-28T20:52:39Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/ConsumerImpl.cc

+                    && msgId.batchIndex_ <= startMessageId_.value().batchIndex_) {
+                LOG_DEBUG(
+                        getName() << "Ignoring message from before the startMessageId" << msg.getMessageId());
+                increaseAvailablePermits(cnx);


should we call increaseAvailablePermits(cnx, numberOfPermits); outside the loop as increaseAvailablePermits sends command to broker if availablePermits > ReceiverQueueSize/2) so, we can save multiple send command.?

Sounds good

Are you planning to address this comment???

merlimat · 2017-08-29T01:52:03Z

@jai1 @rdhabalia I've pulled out all Java changes + the fix for Java client reader to position within a batch into #720. I'll push the stripped version here with just the C++ changes.

merlimat · 2017-08-29T16:59:16Z

@jai1 @rdhabalia Removed Java changes, rebased on #720 and addressed comments.

jai1 · 2017-08-29T18:59:07Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/BatchMessageId.cc

+}
+
+bool BatchMessageId::operator<(const BatchMessageId& other) const {
+    return std::tie(ledgerId_, entryId_, batchIndex_)


Am getting this error - when I try to compile it on our machines.
BatchMessageId.cc:49: error: cannot bind bitfield ‘((const pulsar::BatchMessageId*)other)->pulsar::BatchMessageId::<anonymous>.pulsar::MessageId::entryId_’ to ‘int64_t&’
Same with MessageId.cc

I think the only way out is to compare field by field.

Uhm.. ok :/ I hoped tuple would have been supported in gcc-4.4 as well

jai1 · 2017-08-29T18:59:50Z

pulsar-client-cpp/tests/MessageIdTest.cc

+    std::string serialized;
+    msgId.serialize(serialized);
+
+    std::shared_ptr<MessageId> deserialized = MessageId::deserialize(serialized);


should be
boost::shared_ptr deserialized = MessageId::deserialize(serialized);

yes, I was initially using std::shared_ptr and later converted into boost::shared_ptr

jai1 · 2017-08-29T19:23:18Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/BatchMessageId.cc

+    return s;
+}
+
+}


gtest-internal.h:97: undefined reference to pulsar::operator<<(std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char> >&, pulsar::BatchMessageId const&)

This operator needs to be visible outside if you want to use it in tests - like MessageId

#pragma GCC visibility push(default) std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& s, const pulsar::MessageId& messageId) { s << '(' << messageId.ledgerId_ << ',' << messageId.entryId_ << ',' << messageId.partition_ << ')'; return s; } #pragma GCC visibility pop

merlimat · 2017-08-30T00:05:51Z

@jai1 @rdhabalia Updated with fixes for comments plus some error in MessageId to BatchMessageId casting that was getting a test to be flaky.

jai1

Two small changes remain - rest is fine

jai1 · 2017-08-31T19:25:21Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/MessageId.cc

+
+bool MessageId::operator<(const MessageId& other) const {
+    return std::tie(ledgerId_, entryId_, partition_)
+            < std::tie(other.ledgerId_, other.entryId_, other.partition_);


MessageId.cc:110: error: cannot bind bitfield ‘other->pulsar::MessageId::entryId_’ to ‘int64_t&’

Removed the std::tie() to support older g++

Need to remove std::tie()

jai1 · 2017-08-31T19:31:45Z

managed-ledger/src/main/java/org/apache/bookkeeper/mledger/impl/NonDurableCursorImpl.java

@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
            PositionImpl startCursorPosition) {
        super(bookkeeper, config, ledger, cursorName);

-        if (startCursorPosition == null || startCursorPosition.equals(PositionImpl.latest)) {


merlimat · 2017-09-06T01:13:29Z

@rdhabalia @jai1 Rebased on last master with required commit merged. All comments should have been addressed already.

jai1 · 2017-09-08T18:03:25Z

retest this please

jai1 · 2017-09-08T18:46:06Z

retest this please

jai1 · 2017-09-08T18:53:53Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/MessageId.cc

+
+bool MessageId::operator<(const MessageId& other) const {
+    return std::tie(ledgerId_, entryId_, partition_)
+            < std::tie(other.ledgerId_, other.entryId_, other.partition_);


Need to remove std::tie()

merlimat · 2017-09-08T19:03:54Z

Need to remove std::tie()

I thought I already did. let me check again

rdhabalia · 2017-09-08T18:26:36Z

pulsar-client-cpp/include/pulsar/Client.h

+     * subscription. Reader can only work on non-partitioned topics.
+     * <p>
+     * The initial reader positioning is done by specifying a message id. The options are:
+     * <ul>


does CPP support format of comment like java?

rdhabalia · 2017-09-08T18:47:36Z

pulsar-client-cpp/lib/BatchMessageId.cc

+}
+
+std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& s, const BatchMessageId& messageId) {
+    s << '(' << messageId.ledgerId_ << ':' << messageId.entryId_ << ':' << messageId.batchIndex_


isn't it update value of input param std::ostream& s. So, should we make return type of this function to void so, user would know that it updates input value only.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/476272/how-to-properly-overload-the-operator-for-an-ostream

jai1 · 2017-09-08T22:20:19Z

retest this please

jai1 · 2017-09-08T22:22:06Z

I thought I already did. let me check again

You did it from batchMessageId - forgot to do it for MessageId

merlimat · 2017-09-11T17:11:03Z

@jai1 Updated and also fixed a problem in comparison

jai1 · 2017-09-11T21:20:22Z

@merlimat - Reviewed the PR - LGTM - once you address Rajan's comment about increaseAvailablePermits we can merge it.

merlimat · 2017-09-11T21:29:50Z

@jai1 @rdhabalia Fixed the increaseAvailablePermits() comment

jai1

LGTM
Merge it after the tests pass.

jai1 · 2017-09-11T21:51:32Z

@saandrews @msb-at-yahoo @rdhabalia - Do you want to review this PR, in case I missed something.?

jai1 · 2017-09-11T23:06:13Z

retest this please

merlimat · 2017-09-12T03:53:18Z

Merging this to rebase dependent changes on top of it. Will address comments if they arise

…artup (#9499) ### Motivation Standalone pulsar broker and function service can have deadlock which also sometime causes failures in function unit-test case. Pulsar function tries to create a subscription which blocks the zk thread and can be cause of possible deadlock. Below is the thread-dump when the deadlock happens and function service start up fails. So, remove blocking call while creating subscription using admin-api. ``` "pulsar-load-manager-139-1" #717 prio=5 os_prio=31 tid=0x00007f8a68698000 nid=0x3610f waiting on condition [0x00007000156e9000] java.lang.Thread.State: TIMED_WAITING (parking) at sun.misc.Unsafe.park(Native Method) - parking to wait for <0x0000000792a07020> (a java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$Signaller) at java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.parkNanos(LockSupport.java:215) at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$Signaller.block(CompletableFuture.java:1709) at java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.managedBlock(ForkJoinPool.java:3323) at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.timedGet(CompletableFuture.java:1788) at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.get(CompletableFuture.java:1928) at org.apache.pulsar.zookeeper.ZooKeeperDataCache.get(ZooKeeperDataCache.java:97) at org.apache.pulsar.broker.loadbalance.impl.SimpleLoadManagerImpl.getDynamicConfigurationFromZK(SimpleLoadManagerImpl.java:391) at org.apache.pulsar.broker.loadbalance.impl.SimpleLoadManagerImpl.getDynamicConfigurationDouble(SimpleLoadManagerImpl.java:401) at org.apache.pulsar.broker.loadbalance.impl.SimpleLoadManagerImpl.getLoadBalancerBrokerOverloadedThresholdPercentage(SimpleLoadManagerImpl.java:450) at org.apache.pulsar.broker.loadbalance.impl.SimpleLoadManagerImpl.generateLoadReportForcefully(SimpleLoadManagerImpl.java:1139) - locked <0x000000078e53f2d0> (a java.util.HashSet) at org.apache.pulsar.broker.loadbalance.impl.SimpleLoadManagerImpl.writeLoadReportOnZookeeper(SimpleLoadManagerImpl.java:1295) at org.apache.pulsar.broker.loadbalance.LoadReportUpdaterTask.run(LoadReportUpdaterTask.java:39) at java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Executors.java:511) at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.runAndReset(FutureTask.java:308) at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.access$301(ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java:180) at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.run(ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java:294) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1149) at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:624) at io.netty.util.concurrent.FastThreadLocalRunnable.run(FastThreadLocalRunnable.java:30) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748) "pulsar-ordered-OrderedExecutor-1-0-EventThread" #621 daemon prio=5 os_prio=31 tid=0x00007f89fd8e1800 nid=0x2fe07 waiting on condition [0x000070000f7ce000] java.lang.Thread.State: WAITING (parking) at sun.misc.Unsafe.park(Native Method) - parking to wait for <0x0000000792ecb8b0> (a java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$Signaller) at java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.park(LockSupport.java:175) at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$Signaller.block(CompletableFuture.java:1707) at java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.managedBlock(ForkJoinPool.java:3323) at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.waitingGet(CompletableFuture.java:1742) at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.get(CompletableFuture.java:1908) at org.apache.pulsar.broker.admin.impl.PersistentTopicsBase.internalCreateSubscriptionForNonPartitionedTopic(PersistentTopicsBase.java:2060) at org.apache.pulsar.broker.admin.impl.PersistentTopicsBase.lambda$69(PersistentTopicsBase.java:2034) at org.apache.pulsar.broker.admin.impl.PersistentTopicsBase$$Lambda$676/1709042625.accept(Unknown Source) at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.uniAccept(CompletableFuture.java:670) at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$UniAccept.tryFire(CompletableFuture.java:646) at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.postComplete(CompletableFuture.java:488) at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.complete(CompletableFuture.java:1975) at org.apache.pulsar.zookeeper.ZooKeeperCache.lambda$5(ZooKeeperCache.java:249) at org.apache.pulsar.zookeeper.ZooKeeperCache$$Lambda$154/5998675.processResult(Unknown Source) at org.apache.bookkeeper.zookeeper.ZooKeeperClient$15$1.processResult(ZooKeeperClient.java:879) at org.apache.zookeeper.ClientCnxn$EventThread.processEvent(ClientCnxn.java:583) at org.apache.zookeeper.ClientCnxn$EventThread.run(ClientCnxn.java:510) main" #1 prio=5 os_prio=31 tid=0x00007f8aa0013000 nid=0x1603 waiting on condition [0x0000700004160000] java.lang.Thread.State: WAITING (parking) at sun.misc.Unsafe.park(Native Method) - parking to wait for <0x00000007930efe68> (a java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$Signaller) at java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.park(LockSupport.java:175) at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$Signaller.block(CompletableFuture.java:1707) at java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.managedBlock(ForkJoinPool.java:3323) at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.waitingGet(CompletableFuture.java:1742) at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture.get(CompletableFuture.java:1908) at org.apache.pulsar.client.admin.internal.http.AsyncHttpConnector.apply(AsyncHttpConnector.java:178) at org.glassfish.jersey.client.ClientRuntime.invoke(ClientRuntime.java:297) at org.glassfish.jersey.client.JerseyInvocation.lambda$invoke$1(JerseyInvocation.java:632) at org.glassfish.jersey.client.JerseyInvocation$$Lambda$672/237755480.call(Unknown Source) at org.glassfish.jersey.client.JerseyInvocation.call(JerseyInvocation.java:654) at org.glassfish.jersey.client.JerseyInvocation.lambda$runInScope$3(JerseyInvocation.java:648) at org.glassfish.jersey.client.JerseyInvocation$$Lambda$673/197134325.call(Unknown Source) at org.glassfish.jersey.internal.Errors.process(Errors.java:292) at org.glassfish.jersey.internal.Errors.process(Errors.java:274) at org.glassfish.jersey.internal.Errors.process(Errors.java:205) at org.glassfish.jersey.process.internal.RequestScope.runInScope(RequestScope.java:390) at org.glassfish.jersey.client.JerseyInvocation.runInScope(JerseyInvocation.java:648) at org.glassfish.jersey.client.JerseyInvocation.invoke(JerseyInvocation.java:631) at org.glassfish.jersey.client.JerseyInvocation$Builder.method(JerseyInvocation.java:434) at org.glassfish.jersey.client.JerseyInvocation$Builder.put(JerseyInvocation.java:318) at org.apache.pulsar.client.admin.internal.TopicsImpl.createSubscription(TopicsImpl.java:1143) at org.apache.pulsar.functions.worker.PulsarWorkerService.start(PulsarWorkerService.java:454) at org.apache.pulsar.broker.PulsarService.startWorkerService(PulsarService.java:1343) at org.apache.pulsar.broker.PulsarService.start(PulsarService.java:671) at org.apache.pulsar.io.PulsarFunctionE2ETest.setup(PulsarFunctionE2ETest.java:209) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62) ```

merlimat added the type/feature The PR added a new feature or issue requested a new feature label Aug 27, 2017

merlimat added this to the 1.20.0-incubating milestone Aug 27, 2017

merlimat self-assigned this Aug 27, 2017

merlimat requested review from rdhabalia, jai1 and saandrews August 27, 2017 19:17

merlimat commented Aug 27, 2017

View reviewed changes

merlimat force-pushed the cpp-reader-api branch 2 times, most recently from 181d5fb to 4117703 Compare August 28, 2017 17:53

merlimat mentioned this pull request Aug 28, 2017

Python reader api #718

Merged

rdhabalia reviewed Aug 28, 2017

View reviewed changes

jai1 reviewed Aug 28, 2017

View reviewed changes

jai1 added component/c++ area/client labels Aug 28, 2017

rdhabalia reviewed Aug 28, 2017

View reviewed changes

merlimat force-pushed the cpp-reader-api branch from 4117703 to 467e53c Compare August 29, 2017 16:58

jai1 requested changes Aug 29, 2017

View reviewed changes

merlimat force-pushed the cpp-reader-api branch 2 times, most recently from c3e3a50 to d014e25 Compare August 29, 2017 23:57

jai1 reviewed Aug 31, 2017

View reviewed changes

merlimat force-pushed the cpp-reader-api branch from d014e25 to ebf4fb1 Compare September 6, 2017 01:12

merlimat added 4 commits September 6, 2017 10:35

Reader API for C++ clienReader API for C++ clientt

156a07c

Fixed compile error with listener function

79ce01e

Fixed compile errors and PR comments

2331eaa

Fixed conversion between MessageId and BatchMessageId

23bdf8b

merlimat force-pushed the cpp-reader-api branch from ebf4fb1 to 23bdf8b Compare September 6, 2017 17:35

merlimat added this to PR available in Message deduplication Sep 6, 2017

jai1 requested changes Sep 8, 2017

View reviewed changes

rdhabalia reviewed Sep 8, 2017

View reviewed changes

merlimat force-pushed the cpp-reader-api branch from 1ade68e to 30b5c65 Compare September 10, 2017 05:09

Removed usage of std::tie

0ecbbd8

merlimat force-pushed the cpp-reader-api branch from 30b5c65 to 0ecbbd8 Compare September 10, 2017 22:46

Revert change in BatchMessageId since it breaks the tracker

f502365

Increase available permits only once

96c41c3

jai1 approved these changes Sep 11, 2017

View reviewed changes

merlimat merged commit ee1ba68 into apache:master Sep 12, 2017

merlimat moved this from PR available to Merged in Message deduplication Sep 12, 2017

Reader API for C++ client #717

Reader API for C++ client #717

Conversation

merlimat commented Aug 27, 2017

Motivation

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jai1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

merlimat commented Aug 29, 2017

merlimat commented Aug 29, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jai1 Aug 29, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

merlimat commented Aug 30, 2017

jai1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

merlimat commented Sep 6, 2017

jai1 commented Sep 8, 2017

jai1 commented Sep 8, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

merlimat commented Sep 8, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jai1 commented Sep 8, 2017

jai1 commented Sep 8, 2017 • edited Loading

merlimat commented Sep 11, 2017

jai1 commented Sep 11, 2017

merlimat commented Sep 11, 2017

jai1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jai1 commented Sep 11, 2017 • edited Loading

jai1 commented Sep 11, 2017

merlimat commented Sep 12, 2017

jai1 Aug 29, 2017 •

edited

Loading

jai1 commented Sep 8, 2017 •

edited

Loading

jai1 commented Sep 11, 2017 •

edited

Loading