Thanks to all for voting. So I consider KIP-968 as accepted. Cheers, Alieh
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 5:22 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On 11/21/23 4:52 AM, Lucas Brutschy wrote: > > 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> >
