I updated the KIP and PR with this change On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:58 PM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> Yes, I agree that it would be better to be consistent. I suggest `Long` and > `null` everywhere if feasible as it's less opaque than the magic -1L value. > The KIP page should be updated with what you decide. > > Ismael > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Shikhar Bhushan <shik...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > Hi Ismael, > > > > Good point. This is down to an implementation detail, the getter was > added > > to the base class for `SourceRecord` and `SinkRecord`, > > `ConnectRecord`. `SourceRecord` > > is treating missing timestamps as null while `SinkRecord` is treating it > as > > the default value `Record.NO_TIMESTAMP` (-1L). > > > > It probably makes sense to be consistent and use either Long everywhere > or > > the primitive long and default values. > > > > Feel free to add the comment on the PR > > <https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1537/files> as well and I can > follow > > up there :-) > > > > Thanks, > > > > Shikhar > > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:52 PM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > Hi Shikhar, > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. One question: > > > > > > SinkRecord takes a `long` timestamp, but then exposes it via a method > > that > > > returns `Long`. Is this correct? And if so, can you please explain the > > > reasoning? > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Shikhar Bhushan <shik...@confluent.io > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Kafkarati, > > > > > > > > Here is a pretty straightforward proposal, for exposing timestamps > that > > > > were added in Kafka 0.10 to the connect framework so connectors can > > make > > > > use of them: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-65%3A+Expose+timestamps+to+Connect > > > > > > > > Appreciate your thoughts! > > > > > > > > Shikhar > > > > > > > > > >
