+1 

Thanks
Eno
> On 10 May 2017, at 20:25, Michal Borowiecki <michal.borowie...@openbet.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Apologies, I missed the discussion (or lack thereof) about the return type of:
> 
> WindowStoreIterator<KeyValue<K, V>> fetch(K from, K to, long timeFrom, long 
> timeTo)
> 
> 
> WindowStoreIterator<V> (as the KIP mentions) is a subclass of 
> KeyValueIterator<Long, V>
> 
> KeyValueIterator<K,V> has the following method:
> 
> /** * Peek at the next key without advancing the iterator * @return the key 
> of the next value that would be returned from the next call to next */ K 
> peekNextKey();
> 
> Given the type in this case will be Long, I assume what it would return is 
> the window timestamp of the next found record?
> 
> 
> In the case of WindowStoreIterator<V> fetch(K key, long timeFrom, long 
> timeTo);
> all records found by fetch have the same key, so it's harmless to return the 
> timestamp of the next found window but here we have varying keys and varying 
> windows, so won't it be too confusing?
> 
> KeyValueIterator<Windowed<K>, V> (as in the proposed 
> ReadOnlySessionStore.fetch) just feels much more intuitive.
> 
> Apologies again for jumping onto this only once the voting has already begun.
> Thanks,
> Michał
> 
> On 10/05/17 20:08, Sriram Subramanian wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> +1. Thank you!
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Xavier Léauté <xav...@confluent.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since there aren't any objections to this addition, I would like to
>>> start
>>>>> the voting on KIP-155 so we can hopefully get this into 0.11.
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP+
>>>>> 155+-+Add+range+scan+for+windowed+state+stores
>>>>> 
>>>>> Voting will stay active for at least 72 hours.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Xavier
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> -- Guozhang
>>>> 
> 

Reply via email to