+1 for the KIP and +1 what Xavier said as well.
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:57 AM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, +1 for the KIP
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2017 at 08:57 Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 to what Xavier said
> >
> > On Wed, 24 May 2017 at 06:45 Xavier Léauté <xav...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think we should wait for entries from each stream, since that
> >> might
> >> limit the usefulness of the cogroup operator. There are instances where
> it
> >> can be useful to compute something based on data from one or more
> stream,
> >> without having to wait for all the streams to produce something for the
> >> group. In the example I gave in the discussion, it is possible to
> compute
> >> impression/auction statistics without having to wait for click data,
> which
> >> can typically arrive several minutes late.
> >>
> >> We could have a separate discussion around adding inner / outer
> modifiers
> >> to each of the streams to decide which fields are optional / required
> >> before sending updates if we think that might be useful.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:28 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The proposal LGTM, +1
> >> >
> >> > One question I have is about when to send the record to the resulted
> >> KTable
> >> > changelog. For example in your code snippet in the wiki page, before
> you
> >> > see the end result of
> >> >
> >> > 1L, Customer[
> >> >
> >> > cart:{Item[no:01], Item[no:03], Item[no:04]},
> >> > purchases:{Item[no:07], Item[no:08]},
> >> > wishList:{Item[no:11]}
> >> > ]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You will firs see
> >> >
> >> > 1L, Customer[
> >> >
> >> > cart:{Item[no:01]},
> >> > purchases:{},
> >> > wishList:{}
> >> > ]
> >> >
> >> > 1L, Customer[
> >> >
> >> > cart:{Item[no:01]},
> >> > purchases:{Item[no:07],Item[no:08]},
> >> >
> >> > wishList:{}
> >> > ]
> >> >
> >> > 1L, Customer[
> >> >
> >> > cart:{Item[no:01]},
> >> > purchases:{Item[no:07],Item[no:08]},
> >> >
> >> > wishList:{}
> >> > ]
> >> >
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'm wondering if it makes more sense to only start sending the update
> if
> >> > the corresponding agg-key has seen at least one input from each of the
> >> > input stream? Maybe it is out of the scope of this KIP and we can make
> >> it a
> >> > more general discussion in a separate one.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Guozhang
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Xavier Léauté <xav...@confluent.io>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Kyle, I left a few more comments in the discussion thread, if you
> >> > > wouldn't mind taking a look
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:31 AM Kyle Winkelman <
> >> winkelman.k...@gmail.com
> >> > >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hello all,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-150.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-150+-+
> >> > > Kafka-Streams+Cogroup
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > Kyle
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > -- Guozhang
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
