FWIW, I'm also +1 (non-binding).

Thanks for tackling this, Bill.
-John

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 3:09 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Bill for the update, I'm +1 as well (binding).
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:25 AM Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the comments, Matthias.
> >
> > I don't have a strong preference, so given that Matthias is ok with
> > "StreamJoined" and Guozhang seems to prefer "StreamJoined" I'll update the
> > KIP accordingly.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:04 AM Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > As I mentioned on the DISCUSS thread, it think either `StreamsJoined`
> > > (plural) or `StreamJoin` are good names.
> > >
> > > But I am also ok with `StreamJoined` if anyone insist on it. I leave it
> > > up to Bill to pick any of the three variant.
> > >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> > >
> > > On 9/19/19 9:40 AM, John Roesler wrote:
> > > > I'm +1 either way :)
> > > > -John
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:37 PM Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Good catch!  I meant to propose the name to be "StreamJoin". I have
> > > updated
> > > >> the KIP accordingly.
> > > >>
> > > >> As for the name, I originally had "StreamJoined" and updated it after
> > > some
> > > >> comments on the KIP.
> > > >> I do feel that the name "StreamJoin" is better in this case since it
> > is
> > > >> used to represent a stream join configuration vs. "StreamJoined" which
> > > >> feels more like it's being used as a verb (past tense).
> > > >>
> > > >> WDYT?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 4:48 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hello Bill,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The KIP's proposal has the code snippet name as "StreamJoined" but
> > the
> > > >>> class name defined is StreamJoin.Which one did you propose?
> > Personally
> > > I
> > > >>> think StreamJoined with better aligned with other control objects,
> > but
> > > if
> > > >>> you think otherwise is better I can be convinced too :)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Guozhang
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 4:38 PM Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> All, since we have updated KIP-479
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-479%3A+Add+StreamJoin+config+object+to+Join
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>> seem to have completed the discussion for the updates, I'd like to
> > > call
> > > >>> for
> > > >>>> everyone to vote again.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> Bill
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:46 AM Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> +1 (binding) from myself.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> This vote has been open for 7 days now. so I'm closing this vote
> > > >>> thread.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> KIP-479 had the following votes:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> binding +1s: 3 (Guozhang, Matthias, and Bill)
> > > >>>>> -1 votes: none
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks to everyone who voted and participated in the discussion for
> > > >>> this
> > > >>>>> KIP!
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> -Bill
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 6:03 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> +1 (binding)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 7:39 PM Matthias J. Sax <
> > > >>> matth...@confluent.io>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> +1 (binding)
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On 7/25/19 1:05 PM, Bill Bejeck wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> All,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> After a great discussion on KIP-479 (
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-479%3A+Add+Materialized+to+Join
> > > >>>>>>> )
> > > >>>>>>>> I'd
> > > >>>>>>>> like to start a vote.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>> Bill
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> -- Guozhang
> > > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang

Reply via email to