Hi Alieh, thanks for the KIP!
+1 (binding) Lucas On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 11:26 AM Alieh Saeedi <asae...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > Thanks, Matthias; I changed it to `ANY` which is the shortest and not > misleading. > > Cheers, > Alieh > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:42 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Adding an enum is a good idea! > > > > Wondering if `UNORDERED` is the best name? Want to avoid bike shedding, > > just asking. > > > > We could also use `UNDEFINED` / `UNSPECIFIED` / `NONE` / `ANY` ? > > > > In the end, the result _might_ be ordered, we just don't guarantee any > > order. > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > On 11/20/23 9:17 AM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > I added the public enum `ResultOrder` to the KIP which helps with keeping > > > three values (unordered, ascending, and descending) for the query > > results. > > > Therefore the method `isAscending()` is changed to `resultOrder()` which > > > returns either the user specified result order or `unorderd`. > > > Cheers, > > > Alieh > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:40 PM Alieh Saeedi <asae...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Thank you, Guozhag and Bruno, for reviewing the KIP and reading the > > whole > > >> discussion thread. I appreciate your help:) > > >> The KIP is now corrected and updated. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Alieh > > >> > > >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:43 AM Bruno Cadonna <cado...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Thanks Alieh, > > >>> > > >>> I am +1 (binding). > > >>> > > >>> However, although we agreed on not specifying an order of the results > > by > > >>> default, there is still the following sentence in the KIP: > > >>> > > >>> "The order of the returned records is by default ascending by > > timestamp. > > >>> The method withDescendingTimestamps() can reverse the order. Btw, > > >>> withAscendingTimestamps() method can be used for code readability > > >>> purpose. " > > >>> > > >>> Could you please change it and also fix what Guozhang commented? > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> Bruno > > >>> > > >>> On 11/19/23 2:12 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > >>>> Thanks Alieh, > > >>>> > > >>>> I read through the wiki page and the DISCUSS thread, all LGTM except a > > >>>> minor thing in javadoc: > > >>>> > > >>>> "The query returns the records with a global ascending order of keys. > > >>>> The records with the same key are ordered based on their insertion > > >>>> timestamp in ascending order. Both the global and partial ordering are > > >>>> modifiable with the corresponding methods defined for the class." > > >>>> > > >>>> Since this KIP is only for a single key, there's no key ordering but > > >>>> only timestamp ordering right? Maybe the javadoc can be updated > > >>>> accordingly. > > >>>> > > >>>> Otherwise, LGTM. > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:36 AM Alieh Saeedi > > >>>> <asae...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>> Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening > > the > > >>>>> voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Cheers, > > >>>>> Alieh > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
