In writing a client for 0.8, I now have to keep state of which
topic+partition is owned by what broker. This is inherently a pain to
deal with and has the downside that I must wait for an error before I am
notified about a change in the broker topology.

I would be nice if the clients didn't need to know so much about the
brokers. In Apache Solr, which actually has a similar
partition+replication strategy, each server (broker) can handle requests
for any shard (partition) in the cluster. If the current server happens
to be the leader then it will process the request; if not it will
forward it to the correct server, wait for a response, then forward the
response back to the client.

Dumb clients will pay the extra cost of the additional hop, but do not
need to know anything about the brokers. Smart clients will work
basically like they would now with the added benefit of not getting an
error when leader changes.

Would a strategy like this work in 0.8? Do the brokers know about one

NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB