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
