Hi Both, Thanks. I added remarks to account for this. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-962%3A+Relax+non-null+key+requirement+in+Kafka+Streams#KIP962:RelaxnonnullkeyrequirementinKafkaStreams-Remarks
In short, let's add a note in the Java docs? The exact wording of the note can be scrutinized in the pull request? What do you think? On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 at 19:41, Guozhang Wang <guozhang.wang...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm just thinking we can try to encourage users to migrate from XX to > XXWithKey in the docs, giving this as one good example that the latter > can help you distinguish different scenarios whereas the former > cannot. > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 6:32 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Guozhang, > > > > thanks for pointing out ValueJoinerWithKey. In the end, it's just a > > documentation change, ie, point out that the passed in key could be > > `null` and similar? > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > On 8/2/23 3:20 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > Thanks Florin for the writeup, > > > > > > One quick thing I'd like to bring up is that in KIP-149 > > > ( > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-149%3A+Enabling+key+access+in+ValueTransformer%2C+ValueMapper%2C+and+ValueJoiner > ) > > > we introduced ValueJoinerWithKey which is aimed to enhance > > > ValueJoiner. It would have a benefit for this KIP such that > > > implementers can distinguish "null-key" v.s. "not-null-key but > > > null-value" scenarios. > > > > > > Hence I'd suggest we also include the semantic changes with > > > ValueJoinerWithKey, which can help distinguish these two scenarios, > > > and also document that if users apply ValueJoiner only, they may not > > > have this benefit, and hence we suggest users to use the former. > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 12:11 PM Florin Akermann > > > <florin.akerm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-962%3A+Relax+non-null+key+requirement+in+Kafka+Streams >
