Thanks for clarifying
On 4 September 2016 at 17:36, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> wrote:
> Sorry for not being precise. What I meant be "completely" is for a
> single processor. Assume I want to have the following pattern:
>
> process(...) {
> if (someCondition) {
> state.put(...)
> context.forward(...);
> } else {
> context.forward(...);
> }
>
> Ie, for some record I do update the state and emit output records, for
> other records I only emit output records. This work in current design.
> However, if a "cached state" would be used, it would not work any more.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 09/04/2016 05:58 PM, Damian Guy wrote:
> > Hi Matthias,
> >
> > Thanks for bringing the conversation across to the thread.
> >
> > I think a main limitation would be, that you cannot mix the 4 patterns
> >> within a single application anymore (iff you use a "caches state"). If
> >> you have processor with a "cached state" this disables direct usage of
> >> context.forward() completely -- if I understand the design correctly.
> >> Thus, if a "cached state" is used, forwarding is only possible via state
> >> updates.
> >>
> >>
> > The above statement is not correct. Caching doesn't completely disable
> > forwarding, it only disables it for Processors that are using State
> Stores.
> > In all other cases context.forward() works as it does now.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Damian
> >
>
>
