I think we can continue on this voting thread.
Currently we have one binding vote and 2 non-binging votes. I would like to
call out for other people especially committers to also take a look at this
proposal and vote.
Guozhang
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Kyle Winkelman <winkelman.k...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Just bringing people's attention to the vote thread for my KIP. I started
> it before another round of discussion happened. Not sure the protocol so
> someone let me know if I am supposed to restart the vote.
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
> On May 24, 2017 8:49 AM, "Bill Bejeck" <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +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
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
-- Guozhang
