Thanks Ewen.
@Michal, @all, I have created a child page to start the Use Cases discussion
[https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Punctuate+Use+Cases]. Please
go through it and give your comments.
@Tianji, Sorry for the delay. I am trying to make the patch public.
--
Arun Mathew
On 4/8/17, 02:00, "Ewen Cheslack-Postava" <e...@confluent.io> wrote:
Arun,
I've given you permission to edit the wiki. Let me know if you run into any
issues.
-Ewen
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Arun Mathew <amat...@yahoo-corp.jp> wrote:
> Thanks Michal. I don’t have the access yet [arunmathew88]. Should I be
> sending a separate mail for this?
>
> I thought one of the person following this thread would be able to give me
> access.
>
>
>
> *From: *Michal Borowiecki <michal.borowie...@openbet.com>
> *Reply-To: *"dev@kafka.apache.org" <dev@kafka.apache.org>
> *Date: *Friday, April 7, 2017 at 17:16
> *To: *"dev@kafka.apache.org" <dev@kafka.apache.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-138: Change punctuate semantics
>
>
>
> Hi Arun,
>
> I was thinking along the same lines as you, listing the use cases on the
> wiki, but didn't find time to get around doing that yet.
> Don't mind if you do it if you have access now.
> I was thinking it would be nice if, once we have the use cases listed,
> people could use likes to up-vote the use cases similar to what they're
> working on.
>
> I should have a bit more time to action this in the next few days, but
> happy for you to do it if you can beat me to it ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Michal
>
> On 07/04/17 04:39, Arun Mathew wrote:
>
> Sure, Thanks Matthias. My id is [arunmathew88].
>
>
>
> Of course. I was thinking of a subpage where people can collaborate.
>
>
>
> Will do as per Michael’s suggestion.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Arun Mathew
>
>
>
> On 4/7/17, 12:30, "Matthias J. Sax" <matth...@confluent.io>
<matth...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
>
>
> Please share your Wiki-ID and a committer can give you write access.
>
>
>
> Btw: as you did not initiate the KIP, you should not change the KIP
>
> without the permission of the original author -- in this case Michael.
>
>
>
> So you might also just share your thought over the mailing list and
>
> Michael can update the KIP page. Or, as an alternative, just create a
>
> subpage for the KIP page.
>
>
>
> @Michael: WDYT?
>
>
>
>
>
> -Matthias
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/6/17 8:05 PM, Arun Mathew wrote:
>
> > Hi Jay,
>
> > Thanks for the advise, I would like to list down the use
cases as
>
> > per your suggestion. But it seems I don't have write permission to
the
>
> > Apache Kafka Confluent Space. Whom shall I request for it?
>
> >
>
> > Regarding your last question. We are using a patch in our
production system
>
> > which does exactly this.
>
> > We window by the event time, but trigger punctuate in <punctuate
interval>
>
> > duration of system time, in the absence of an event crossing the
punctuate
>
> > event time.
>
> >
>
> > We are using Kafka Stream for our Audit Trail, where we need to
output the
>
> > event counts on each topic on each cluster aggregated over a 1
minute
>
> > window. We have to use event time to be able to cross check the
counts. But
>
> > we need to trigger punctuate [aggregate event pushes] by system
time in the
>
> > absence of events. Otherwise the event counts for unexpired windows
would
>
> > be 0 which is bad.
>
> >
>
> > "Maybe a hybrid solution works: I window by event time but trigger
results
>
> > by system time for windows that have updated? Not really sure the
details
>
> > of making that work. Does that work? Are there concrete examples
where you
>
> > actually want the current behavior?"
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > With Regards,
>
> >
>
> > Arun Mathew
>
> > Yahoo! JAPAN Corporation
>
> >
>
> > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Tianji Li <skyah...@gmail.com>
<skyah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Hi Jay,
>
> >>
>
> >> The hybrid solution is exactly what I expect and need for our use
cases
>
> >> when dealing with telecom data.
>
> >>
>
> >> Thanks
>
> >> Tianji
>
> >>
>
> >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io>
<j...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Hey guys,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> One thing I've always found super important for this kind of
design work
>
> >> is
>
> >>> to do a really good job of cataloging the landscape of use cases
and how
>
> >>> prevalent each one is. By that I mean not just listing lots of
uses, but
>
> >>> also grouping them into categories that functionally need the
same thing.
>
> >>> In the absence of this it is very hard to reason about design
proposals.
>
> >>> From the proposals so far I think we have a lot of discussion
around
>
> >>> possible apis, but less around what the user needs for different
use
>
> >> cases
>
> >>> and how they would implement that using the api.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Here is an example:
>
> >>> You aggregate click and impression data for a reddit like site.
Every ten
>
> >>> minutes you want to output a ranked list of the top 10 articles
ranked by
>
> >>> clicks/impressions for each geographical area. I want to be able
run this
>
> >>> in steady state as well as rerun to regenerate results (or catch
up if it
>
> >>> crashes).
>
> >>>
>
> >>> There are a couple of tricky things that seem to make this hard
with
>
> >> either
>
> >>> of the options proposed:
>
> >>> 1. If I emit this data using event time I have the problem
described
>
> >> where
>
> >>> a geographical region with no new clicks or impressions will fail
to
>
> >> output
>
> >>> results.
>
> >>> 2. If I emit this data using system time I have the problem that
when
>
> >>> reprocessing data my window may not be ten minutes but 10 hours
if my
>
> >>> processing is very fast so it dramatically changes the output.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Maybe a hybrid solution works: I window by event time but trigger
results
>
> >>> by system time for windows that have updated? Not really sure the
details
>
> >>> of making that work. Does that work? Are there concrete examples
where
>
> >> you
>
> >>> actually want the current behavior?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> -Jay
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Arun Mathew
<arunmathe...@gmail.com> <arunmathe...@gmail.com>
>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> Hi All,
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Thanks for the KIP. We were also in need of a mechanism to
trigger
>
> >>>> punctuate in the absence of events.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> As I described in [
>
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3514?
>
> >>>> focusedCommentId=15926036&page=com.atlassian.jira.
>
> >>>> plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15926036
>
> >>>> ],
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> - Our approached involved using the event time by default.
>
> >>>> - The method to check if there is any punctuate ready in the
>
> >>>> PunctuationQueue is triggered via the any event received by
the
>
> >> stream
>
> >>>> tread, or at the polling intervals in the absence of any
events.
>
> >>>> - When we create Punctuate objects (which contains the next
event
>
> >> time
>
> >>>> for punctuation and interval), we also record the creation
time
>
> >>> (system
>
> >>>> time).
>
> >>>> - While checking for maturity of Punctuate Schedule by
>
> >> mayBePunctuate
>
> >>>> method, we also check if the system clock has elapsed the
punctuate
>
> >>>> interval since the schedule creation time.
>
> >>>> - In the absence of any event, or in the absence of any event
for
>
> >> one
>
> >>>> topic in the partition group assigned to the stream task, the
system
>
> >>>> time
>
> >>>> will elapse the interval and we trigger a punctuate using the
>
> >> expected
>
> >>>> punctuation event time.
>
> >>>> - we then create the next punctuation schedule as punctuation
event
>
> >>> time
>
> >>>> + punctuation interval, [again recording the system time of
creation
>
> >>> of
>
> >>>> the
>
> >>>> schedule].
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> We call this a Hybrid Punctuate. Of course, this approach has
pros and
>
> >>>> cons.
>
> >>>> Pros
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> - Punctuates will happen in <punctuate interval> time
duration at
>
> >> max
>
> >>> in
>
> >>>> terms of system time.
>
> >>>> - The semantics as a whole continues to revolve around event
time.
>
> >>>> - We can use the old data [old timestamps] to rerun any
experiments
>
> >> or
>
> >>>> tests.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Cons
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> - In case the <punctuate interval> is not a time duration
[say
>
> >>> logical
>
> >>>> time/event count], then the approach might not be meaningful.
>
> >>>> - In case there is a case where we have to wait for an actual
event
>
> >>> from
>
> >>>> a low event rate partition in the partition group, this
approach
>
> >> will
>
> >>>> jump
>
> >>>> the gun.
>
> >>>> - in case the event processing cannot catch up with the event
rate
>
> >> and
>
> >>>> the expected timestamp events gets queued for long time, this
>
> >> approach
>
> >>>> might jump the gun.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I believe the above approach and discussion goes close to the
approach
>
> >> A.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> -----------
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I like the idea of having an even count based punctuate.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> -----------
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I agree with the discussion around approach C, that we should
provide
>
> >> the
>
> >>>> user with the option to choose system time or event time based
>
> >>> punctuates.
>
> >>>> But I believe that the user predominantly wants to use event
time while
>
> >>> not
>
> >>>> missing out on regular punctuates due to event delays or event
>
> >> absences.
>
> >>>> Hence a complex punctuate option as Matthias mentioned (quoted
below)
>
> >>> would
>
> >>>> be most apt.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> "- We might want to add "complex" schedules later on (like,
punctuate
>
> >> on
>
> >>>> every 10 seconds event-time or 60 seconds system-time whatever
comes
>
> >>>> first)."
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> -----------
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I think I read somewhere that Kafka Streams started with System
Time as
>
> >>> the
>
> >>>> punctuation standard, but was later changed to Event Time. I
guess
>
> >> there
>
> >>>> would be some good reason behind it. As Kafka Streams want to
evolve
>
> >> more
>
> >>>> on the Stream Processing front, I believe the emphasis on event
time
>
> >>> would
>
> >>>> remain quite strong.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> With Regards,
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Arun Mathew
>
> >>>> Yahoo! JAPAN Corporation, Tokyo
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:53 AM, Thomas Becker
<tobec...@tivo.com> <tobec...@tivo.com>
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>> Yeah I like PuncutationType much better; I just threw Time out
there
>
> >>>>> more as a strawman than an actual suggestion ;) I still think
it's
>
> >>>>> worth considering what this buys us over an additional
callback. I
>
> >>>>> foresee a number of punctuate implementations following this
pattern:
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> public void punctuate(PunctuationType type) {
>
> >>>>> switch (type) {
>
> >>>>> case EVENT_TIME:
>
> >>>>> methodA();
>
> >>>>> break;
>
> >>>>> case SYSTEM_TIME:
>
> >>>>> methodB();
>
> >>>>> break;
>
> >>>>> }
>
> >>>>> }
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> I guess one advantage of this approach is we could add
additional
>
> >>>>> punctuation types later in a backwards compatible way (like
event
>
> >> count
>
> >>>>> as you mentioned).
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> -Tommy
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 11:10 -0700, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>
> >>>>>> That sounds promising.
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> I am just wondering if `Time` is the best name. Maybe we want
to
>
> >> add
>
> >>>>>> other non-time based punctuations at some point later. I would
>
> >>>>>> suggest
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> enum PunctuationType {
>
> >>>>>> EVENT_TIME,
>
> >>>>>> SYSTEM_TIME,
>
> >>>>>> }
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> or similar. Just to keep the door open -- it's easier to add
new
>
> >>>>>> stuff
>
> >>>>>> if the name is more generic.
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> -Matthias
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> On 4/4/17 5:30 AM, Thomas Becker wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> I agree that the framework providing and managing the notion
of
>
> >>>>>>> stream
>
> >>>>>>> time is valuable and not something we would want to delegate
to
>
> >> the
>
> >>>>>>> tasks. I'm not entirely convinced that a separate callback
>
> >> (option
>
> >>>>>>> C)
>
> >>>>>>> is that messy (it could just be a default method with an empty
>
> >>>>>>> implementation), but if we wanted a single API to handle both
>
> >>>>>>> cases,
>
> >>>>>>> how about something like the following?
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> enum Time {
>
> >>>>>>> STREAM,
>
> >>>>>>> CLOCK
>
> >>>>>>> }
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Then on ProcessorContext:
>
> >>>>>>> context.schedule(Time time, long interval) // We could allow
>
> >> this
>
> >>>>>>> to
>
> >>>>>>> be called once for each value of time to mix approaches.
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Then the Processor API becomes:
>
> >>>>>>> punctuate(Time time) // time here denotes which schedule
resulted
>
> >>>>>>> in
>
> >>>>>>> this call.
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Thoughts?
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 22:44 -0700, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for the KIP Michal,
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> I was thinking about the four options you proposed in more
>
> >>>>>>>> details
>
> >>>>>>>> and
>
> >>>>>>>> this are my thoughts:
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> (A) You argue, that users can still "punctuate" on event-time
>
> >> via
>
> >>>>>>>> process(), but I am not sure if this is possible. Note, that
>
> >>>>>>>> users
>
> >>>>>>>> only
>
> >>>>>>>> get record timestamps via context.timestamp(). Thus, users
>
> >> would
>
> >>>>>>>> need
>
> >>>>>>>> to
>
> >>>>>>>> track the time progress per partition (based on the
partitions
>
> >>>>>>>> they
>
> >>>>>>>> obverse via context.partition(). (This alone puts a huge
burden
>
> >>>>>>>> on
>
> >>>>>>>> the
>
> >>>>>>>> user by itself.) However, users are not notified at startup
>
> >> what
>
> >>>>>>>> partitions are assigned, and user are not notified when
>
> >>>>>>>> partitions
>
> >>>>>>>> get
>
> >>>>>>>> revoked. Because this information is not available, it's not
>
> >>>>>>>> possible
>
> >>>>>>>> to
>
> >>>>>>>> "manually advance" stream-time, and thus event-time
punctuation
>
> >>>>>>>> within
>
> >>>>>>>> process() seems not to be possible -- or do you see a way to
>
> >> get
>
> >>>>>>>> it
>
> >>>>>>>> done? And even if, it might still be too clumsy to use.
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> (B) This does not allow to mix both approaches, thus limiting
>
> >>>>>>>> what
>
> >>>>>>>> users
>
> >>>>>>>> can do.
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> (C) This should give all flexibility we need. However, just
>
> >>>>>>>> adding
>
> >>>>>>>> one
>
> >>>>>>>> more method seems to be a solution that is too simple (cf my
>
> >>>>>>>> comments
>
> >>>>>>>> below).
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> (D) This might be hard to use. Also, I am not sure how a user
>
> >>>>>>>> could
>
> >>>>>>>> enable system-time and event-time punctuation in parallel.
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> Overall options (C) seems to be the most promising approach
to
>
> >>>>>>>> me.
>
> >>>>>>>> Because I also favor a clean API, we might keep current
>
> >>>>>>>> punctuate()
>
> >>>>>>>> as-is, but deprecate it -- so we can remove it at some later
>
> >>>>>>>> point
>
> >>>>>>>> when
>
> >>>>>>>> people use the "new punctuate API".
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> Couple of follow up questions:
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> - I am wondering, if we should have two callback methods or
>
> >> just
>
> >>>>>>>> one
>
> >>>>>>>> (ie, a unified for system and event time punctuation or one
for
>
> >>>>>>>> each?).
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> - If we have one, how can the user figure out, which
condition
>
> >>>>>>>> did
>
> >>>>>>>> trigger?
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> - How would the API look like, for registering different
>
> >>>>>>>> punctuate
>
> >>>>>>>> schedules? The "type" must be somehow defined?
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> - We might want to add "complex" schedules later on (like,
>
> >>>>>>>> punctuate
>
> >>>>>>>> on
>
> >>>>>>>> every 10 seconds event-time or 60 seconds system-time
whatever
>
> >>>>>>>> comes
>
> >>>>>>>> first). I don't say we should add this right away, but we
might
>
> >>>>>>>> want
>
> >>>>>>>> to
>
> >>>>>>>> define the API in a way, that it allows extensions like this
>
> >>>>>>>> later
>
> >>>>>>>> on,
>
> >>>>>>>> without redesigning the API (ie, the API should be designed
>
> >>>>>>>> extensible)
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> - Did you ever consider count-based punctuation?
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> I understand, that you would like to solve a simple problem,
>
> >> but
>
> >>>>>>>> we
>
> >>>>>>>> learned from the past, that just "adding some API" quickly
>
> >> leads
>
> >>>>>>>> to a
>
> >>>>>>>> not very well defined API that needs time consuming clean up
>
> >>>>>>>> later on
>
> >>>>>>>> via other KIPs. Thus, I would prefer to get a holistic
>
> >>>>>>>> punctuation
>
> >>>>>>>> KIP
>
> >>>>>>>> with this from the beginning on to avoid later painful
>
> >> redesign.
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> -Matthias
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>> On 4/3/17 11:58 AM, Michal Borowiecki wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Thomas,
>
> >>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm also wary of changing the existing semantics of
>
> >> punctuate,
>
> >>>>>>>>> for
>
> >>>>>>>>> backward compatibility reasons, although I like the
>
> >> conceptual
>
> >>>>>>>>> simplicity of that option.
>
> >>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>> Adding a new method to me feels safer but, in a way, uglier.
>
> >> I
>
> >>>>>>>>> added
>
> >>>>>>>>> this to the KIP now as option (C).
>
> >>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>> The TimestampExtractor mechanism is actually more flexible,
>
> >> as
>
> >>>>>>>>> it
>
> >>>>>>>>> allows
>
> >>>>>>>>> you to return any value, you're not limited to event time or
>
> >>>>>>>>> system
>
> >>>>>>>>> time
>
> >>>>>>>>> (although I don't see an actual use case where you might
need
>
> >>>>>>>>> anything
>
> >>>>>>>>> else then those two). Hence I also proposed the option to
>
> >> allow
>
> >>>>>>>>> users
>
> >>>>>>>>> to, effectively, decide what "stream time" is for them given
>
> >>>>>>>>> the
>
> >>>>>>>>> presence or absence of messages, much like they can decide
>
> >> what
>
> >>>>>>>>> msg
>
> >>>>>>>>> time
>
> >>>>>>>>> means for them using the TimestampExtractor. What do you
>
> >> think
>
> >>>>>>>>> about
>
> >>>>>>>>> that? This is probably most flexible but also most
>
> >> complicated.
>
> >>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>> All comments appreciated.
>
> >>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>
> >>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>> Michal
>
> >>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>> On 03/04/17 19:23, Thomas Becker wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Although I fully agree we need a way to trigger periodic
>
> >>>>>>>>>> processing
>
> >>>>>>>>>> that is independent from whether and when messages arrive,
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm
>
> >>>>>>>>>> not sure
>
> >>>>>>>>>> I like the idea of changing the existing semantics across
>
> >> the
>
> >>>>>>>>>> board.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> What if we added an additional callback to Processor that
>
> >> can
>
> >>>>>>>>>> be
>
> >>>>>>>>>> scheduled similarly to punctuate() but was always called at
>
> >>>>>>>>>> fixed, wall
>
> >>>>>>>>>> clock based intervals? This way you wouldn't have to give
>
> >> up
>
> >>>>>>>>>> the
>
> >>>>>>>>>> notion
>
> >>>>>>>>>> of stream time to be able to do periodic processing.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 10:34 +0100, Michal Borowiecki wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have created a draft for KIP-138: Change punctuate
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> semantics
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP->
>
> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP->>> 138%
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 3A+C
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> hange+
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> punctuate+semantics>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> .
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Appreciating there can be different views on system-time
>
> >> vs
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> event-
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> time
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> semantics for punctuation depending on use-case and the
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> importance of
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> backwards compatibility of any such change, I've left it
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> quite
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> open
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> hope to fill in more info as the discussion progresses.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Michal
>
> >>>>>>> --
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Tommy Becker
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Senior Software Engineer
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> O +1 919.460.4747 <(919)%20460-4747>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> tivo.com
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> ________________________________
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> This email and any attachments may contain confidential and
>
> >>>>>>> privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient.
>
> >> Any
>
> >>>>>>> review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any
>
> >> attachments)
>
> >>>>>>> by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient,
>
> >>>>>>> please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete
this
>
> >>>>>>> email and any attachments. No employee or agent of TiVo Inc.
is
>
> >>>>>>> authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of TiVo
>
> >> Inc.
>
> >>>>>>> by email. Binding agreements with TiVo Inc. may only be made
by a
>
> >>>>>>> signed written agreement.
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>> --
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> Tommy Becker
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> Senior Software Engineer
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> O +1 919.460.4747 <(919)%20460-4747>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> tivo.com
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> ________________________________
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> This email and any attachments may contain confidential and
>
> >> privileged
>
> >>>>> material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,
>
> >>> copying,
>
> >>>>> or distribution of this email (or any attachments) by others is
>
> >>>> prohibited.
>
> >>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
>
> >>>>> immediately and permanently delete this email and any
attachments. No
>
> >>>>> employee or agent of TiVo Inc. is authorized to conclude any
binding
>
> >>>>> agreement on behalf of TiVo Inc. by email. Binding agreements
with
>
> >> TiVo
>
> >>>>> Inc. may only be made by a signed written agreement.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> <http://www.openbet.com/>
>
> *Michal Borowiecki*
>
> *Senior Software Engineer L4*
>
> *T: *
>
> +44 208 742 1600 <+44%2020%208742%201600>
>
> +44 203 249 8448 <+44%2020%203249%208448>
>
>
>
> *E: *
>
> michal.borowie...@openbet.com
>
> *W: *
>
> www.openbet.com
>
> *OpenBet Ltd*
>
> Chiswick Park Building 9
>
> 566 Chiswick High Rd
>
> London
>
> W4 5XT
>
> UK
>
> <https://www.openbet.com/email_promo>
>
>
>
> This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you
> have received this message in error, please immediately notify the
> postmas...@openbet.com and delete it from your system as well as any
> copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by
> OpenBet for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment
> please do not print this e-mail unless necessary. OpenBet Ltd. Registered
> Office: Chiswick Park Building 9, 566 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 5XT,
> United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no.
> 3134634. VAT no. GB927523612
>
>
>
