I see. LGTM. On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 on adding node name to the `RecordContext` > > -Bill > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Jeyhun Karimov <je.kari...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I agree with Matthias's comment. Constructing RecordContext with more > > metadata seems more feasible for me. > > > > Cheers, > > Jeyun > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:47 AM Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > Not with the scope of the current discussion. > > > > > > So far, we discuss to add `RecordContext`, but the context object we > use > > > could also provide some more metadata. I see no reason why not to > expose > > > the node name there. We already expose TaskId vie `ProcessorContext`. > We > > > could also add thread name. IMHO, this would be better than dictating > > > any prefix. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > On 6/4/17 9:03 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > > Matthias, > > > > > > > > I think even with KIP-159 users would not be able to access the > > processor > > > > node name right? > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Matthias J. Sax < > > matth...@confluent.io> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Thanks for the KIP. > > > >> > > > >> Two comments: > > > >> - I think we should include #writeAsText() > > > >> - I am not sure if we should use > > > >> > > > >>> "[" + this.streamName + "]: " + mapper.apply(keyToPrint, > > valueToPrint) > > > >> > > > >> in case a mapper is provided. This still dictates a fixed prefix a > > user > > > >> might not want to have (what contradicts or at least limits the > scope > > of > > > >> this new functionality). Considering he current discussion of > > KIP-159, a > > > >> user would be able to access the stream name within the provided > > mapper > > > >> and add it if they wish anyway, and thus, I don't think we should > > force > > > >> this format. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -Matthias > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 5/30/17 1:38 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > >>> Overall +1. One comment about the wiki itself: > > > >>> > > > >>> Could you replace the general description of "Argument > > KStream.print() > > > >> which > > > >>> is KStream.print(KeyValueMapper<K, V, String>)" with the actual > > added > > > >>> overloaded functions in the wiki page? > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Guozhang > > > >>> > > > >>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:21 AM, James Chain < > > > james.chain1...@gmail.com > > > >>> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi All, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I want to start this KIP to argument KStream.print(). > > > >>>> This vote is already started. > > > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > >>>> 160+-+Augment+KStream.print%28%29+to+allow+users+pass+in+ > > > >>>> extra+parameters+in+the+printed+string > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> James Chien > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -Cheers > > > > Jeyhun > > > -- -- Guozhang
