Just wanted to bump this thread for visbility.
Thanks to everyone who has participated in the discussion so far. 

Thanks,
Farooq

On 2023/02/14 19:32:53 Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Thanks Farooq, that looks good to me.
> 
> Guozhang
> 
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 9:01 AM Dharin Shah <dh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Farooq,
> >
> > This is actually a great idea, we have dealt with this by using an array
> > instead of a set.
> > +1 to this :)
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Dharin
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 8:11 PM Fq Public <fq...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Guozhang,
> > >
> > > Thanks for reading over my proposal!
> > >
> > > > Regarding the format, I'm just thinking if we can change the type of
> > > "INT newDataLength" to UINT32?
> > >
> > > Good idea, I've updated the KIP to reflect UINT32 since it makes clear the
> > > value can never be less than zero.
> > >
> > > > `.equals` default implementation on Object is by reference, so if the
> > > groupBy did not generate a new object, that may still pass. This means 
> > > that
> > > even if user does not implement the `.equals` function, if the same object
> > > is returned then this feature would still be triggered, is that correct?
> > >
> > > Correct, I've updated the KIP to call out this edge-case clearly as
> > > follows:
> > >
> > > > Since the default `.equals` implementation for an `Object`  is by
> > > reference, if a user's `groupBy` returns the same reference for the key,
> > > then the oldKey and the newKey will naturally `.equals`  each other. This
> > > will result in a single event being sent to the repartition topic. This
> > > change in behaviour should be considered a "bug-fix" rather than a
> > > "breaking change" as the semantics of the operation remain unchanged, the
> > > only thing that changes for users is they no longer see transient
> > > "inconsistent" states.  In the worst case, users in this situation will
> > > need to update any strict tests that check specifically for the presence 
> > > of
> > > transient "inconsistent" states.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Farooq
> > >
> > > On 2023/02/07 18:02:24 Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > Hello Farooq,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the very detailed proposal! I think this is a great idea.
> > > > Just a few thoughts:
> > > >
> > > > 1. I regret that we over-optimized the Changed serde format for
> > > > footprint while making it less extensible. It seems to me that a two
> > > > rolling bounce migration is unavoidable.. Regarding the format, I'm
> > > > just thinking if we can change the type of "INT newDataLength" to
> > > > UINT32?
> > > >
> > > > 2. `.equals` default implementation on Object is by reference, so if
> > > > the groupBy did not generate a new object, that may still pass. This
> > > > means that even if user does not implement the `.equals` function, if
> > > > the same object is returned then this feature would still be
> > > > triggered, is that correct?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Guozhang
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 5:05 AM Fq Public <fq...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to share a new KIP for discussion:
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/P5VbDg
> > > > >
> > > > > This could be considered mostly as a "bug fix" but we wanted to raise
> > > a KIP
> > > > > for discussion because it involves changes to the serialization format
> > > of
> > > > > an internal topic which raises backward compatibility considerations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please take a look and let me know what you think.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Farooq
> > > >
> 

Reply via email to