+1
One interface is cleaner.
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for me on collapsing the RichXXXX and ValueXXXXWithKey interfaces into 1
> interface.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Jeyhun Karimov <je.kari...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Damian,
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback. Actually, this (what you propose) was the first
> > idea of KIP-149. Then we decided to divide it into two KIPs. I also
> > expressed my opinion that keeping the two interfaces (Rich and withKey)
> > separate would add more overloads. So, email discussion resulted that
> this
> > would not be a problem.
> >
> > Our initial idea was similar to :
> >
> > public abstract class RichValueMapper<K, V, VR> implements
> > ValueMapperWithKey<K, V, VR>, RichFunction {
> > ......
> > }
> >
> >
> > So, we check the type of object, whether it is RichXXX or XXXWithKey
> inside
> > the called method and continue accordingly.
> >
> > If this is ok with the community, I would like to revert the current
> design
> > to this again.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jeyhun
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:02 PM Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jeyhun,
> > >
> > > Thanks for sending out the update. I guess i was thinking more along
> the
> > > lines of option 2 where we collapse the RichXXXX and ValueXXXXWithKey
> etc
> > > interfaces into 1 interface that has all of the arguments. I think we
> > then
> > > only need to add one additional overload for each operator?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Damian
> > >
> > > On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 at 10:59 Jeyhun Karimov <je.kari...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to resume the discussion on KIP-159. I (and Guozhang)
> > think
> > > > that releasing KIP-149 and KIP-159 in the same release would make
> sense
> > > to
> > > > avoid a release with "partial" public APIs. There is a KIP [1]
> proposed
> > > by
> > > > Guozhang (and approved by me) to unify both KIPs.
> > > > Please feel free to comment on this.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > action?pageId=73637757
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Jeyhun
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 2:00 AM Jeyhun Karimov <je.kari...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Matthias, Damian, all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your comments and sorry for super-late update.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, the DSL refactoring is not blocking for this KIP.
> > > > > I made some changes to KIP document based on my prototype.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please feel free to comment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Jeyhun
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:35 PM Matthias J. Sax <
> > matth...@confluent.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I would not block this KIP with regard to DSL refactoring. IMHO,
> we
> > > can
> > > > >> just finish this one and the DSL refactoring will help later on to
> > > > >> reduce the number of overloads.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Matthias
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 7/7/17 5:28 AM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
> > > > >> > I am following the related thread in the mailing list and
> looking
> > > > >> forward
> > > > >> > for one-shot solution for overloads issue.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Cheers,
> > > > >> > Jeyhun
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:32 AM Damian Guy <
> damian....@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Hi Jeyhun,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> About overrides, what other alternatives do we have? For
> > > > >> >>> backwards-compatibility we have to add extra methods to the
> > > existing
> > > > >> >> ones.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >> It wasn't clear to me in the KIP if these are new methods or
> > > > replacing
> > > > >> >> existing ones.
> > > > >> >> Also, we are currently discussing options for replacing the
> > > > overrides.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Thanks,
> > > > >> >> Damian
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>> About ProcessorContext vs RecordContext, you are right. I
> think
> > I
> > > > >> need to
> > > > >> >>> implement a prototype to understand the full picture as some
> > parts
> > > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >>> KIP might not be as straightforward as I thought.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> Cheers,
> > > > >> >>> Jeyhun
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:40 AM Damian Guy <
> > damian....@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>> HI Jeyhun,
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> Is the intention that these methods are new overloads on the
> > > > KStream,
> > > > >> >>>> KTable, etc?
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> It is worth noting that a ProcessorContext is not a
> > > RecordContext.
> > > > A
> > > > >> >>>> RecordContext, as it stands, only exists during the
> processing
> > > of a
> > > > >> >>> single
> > > > >> >>>> record. Whereas the ProcessorContext exists for the lifetime
> of
> > > the
> > > > >> >>>> Processor. Sot it doesn't make sense to cast a
> ProcessorContext
> > > to
> > > > a
> > > > >> >>>> RecordContext.
> > > > >> >>>> You mentioned above passing the InternalProcessorContext to
> the
> > > > >> init()
> > > > >> >>>> calls. It is internal for a reason and i think it should
> remain
> > > > that
> > > > >> >> way.
> > > > >> >>>> It might be better to move the recordContext() method from
> > > > >> >>>> InternalProcessorContext to ProcessorContext.
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> In the KIP you have an example showing:
> > > > >> >>>> richMapper.init((RecordContext) processorContext);
> > > > >> >>>> But the interface is:
> > > > >> >>>> public interface RichValueMapper<V, VR> {
> > > > >> >>>> VR apply(final V value, final RecordContext
> recordContext);
> > > > >> >>>> }
> > > > >> >>>> i.e., there is no init(...), besides as above this wouldn't
> > make
> > > > >> sense.
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >> >>>> Damian
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 at 23:30 Jeyhun Karimov <
> > je.kari...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> Hi Matthias,
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> Actually my intend was to provide to RichInitializer and
> later
> > > on
> > > > we
> > > > >> >>>> could
> > > > >> >>>>> provide the context of the record as you also mentioned.
> > > > >> >>>>> I remove that not to confuse the users.
> > > > >> >>>>> Regarding the RecordContext and ProcessorContext
> interfaces, I
> > > > just
> > > > >> >>>>> realized the InternalProcessorContext class. Can't we pass
> > this
> > > > as a
> > > > >> >>>>> parameter to init() method of processors? Then we would be
> > able
> > > to
> > > > >> >> get
> > > > >> >>>>> RecordContext easily with just a method call.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >> >>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:14 PM Matthias J. Sax <
> > > > >> >>> matth...@confluent.io>
> > > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> One more thing:
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> I don't think `RichInitializer` does make sense. As we
> don't
> > > have
> > > > >> >> any
> > > > >> >>>>>> input record, there is also no context. We could of course
> > > > provide
> > > > >> >>> the
> > > > >> >>>>>> context of the record that triggers the init call, but this
> > > seems
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >>> be
> > > > >> >>>>>> semantically questionable. Also, the context for this first
> > > > record
> > > > >> >>> will
> > > > >> >>>>>> be provided by the consecutive call to aggregate anyways.
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> -Matthias
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> On 6/29/17 1:11 PM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>> Thanks for updating the KIP.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>> I have one concern with regard to backward compatibility.
> > You
> > > > >> >>> suggest
> > > > >> >>>>> to
> > > > >> >>>>>>> use RecrodContext as base interface for ProcessorContext.
> > This
> > > > >> >> will
> > > > >> >>>>>>> break compatibility.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>> I think, we should just have two independent interfaces.
> Our
> > > own
> > > > >> >>>>>>> ProcessorContextImpl class would implement both. This
> allows
> > > us
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >>>> cast
> > > > >> >>>>>>> it to `RecordContext` and thus limit the visible scope.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>> -Matthias
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>> On 6/27/17 1:35 PM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> I updated the KIP w.r.t. discussion and comments.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> Basically I eliminated overloads for particular method if
> > > they
> > > > >> >> are
> > > > >> >>>>> more
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> than 3.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> As we can see there are a lot of overloads (and more will
> > > come
> > > > >> >>> with
> > > > >> >>>>>> KIP-149
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> :) )
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> So, is it wise to
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> wait the result of constructive DSL thread or
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> extend KIP to address this issue as well or
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> continue as it is?
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:29 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > >> >>> wangg...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> LGTM. Thanks!
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Jeyhun Karimov <
> > > > >> >>>>> je.kari...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the comment Matthias. After all the
> discussion
> > > > >> >>> (thanks
> > > > >> >>>> to
> > > > >> >>>>>> all
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> participants), I think this (single method that passes
> > in a
> > > > >> >>>>>> RecordContext
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> object) is the best alternative.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Just a side note: I think KAFKA-3907 [1] can also be
> > > > >> >> integrated
> > > > >> >>>> into
> > > > >> >>>>>> the
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> KIP by adding related method inside RecordContext
> > > interface.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3907
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:50 PM Matthias J. Sax <
> > > > >> >>>>>> matth...@confluent.io>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to push this discussion further. It seems
> > we
> > > > got
> > > > >> >>>> nice
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> alternatives (thanks for the summary Jeyhun!).
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> With respect to RichFunctions and allowing them to be
> > > > >> >>> stateful, I
> > > > >> >>>>>> have
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> my doubt as expressed already. From my understanding,
> > the
> > > > >> >> idea
> > > > >> >>>> was
> > > > >> >>>>> to
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> give access to record metadata information only. If
> you
> > > want
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >>>> do
> > > > >> >>>>> a
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> stateful computation you should rather use
> #transform().
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, as pointed out, we would need to switch
> to
> > a
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> supplier-pattern introducing many more overloads.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> For those reason, I advocate for a simple interface
> > with a
> > > > >> >>> single
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> method
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> that passes in a RecordContext object.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/17 5:15 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the comprehensive summary!
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Personally I'd prefer the option of passing
> > RecordContext
> > > > as
> > > > >> >>> an
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> additional
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> parameter into he overloaded function. But I'm also
> > open
> > > to
> > > > >> >>>> other
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> arguments
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> if there are sth. that I have overlooked.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Jeyhun Karimov <
> > > > >> >>>>>> je.kari...@gmail.com
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments Matthias and Guozhang.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Below I mention the quick summary of the main
> > > alternatives
> > > > >> >> we
> > > > >> >>>>>> looked
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the Rich functions (I will refer to it as
> > Rich
> > > > >> >>>>> functions
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> until we
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> find better/another name). Initially the proposed
> > > > >> >>> alternatives
> > > > >> >>>>> was
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> not
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> backwards-compatible, so I will not mention them.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The related discussions are spread in KIP-149 and in
> > > this
> > > > >> >> KIP
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> (KIP-159)
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion threads.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The idea of rich functions came into the stage
> with
> > > > >> >>> KIP-149,
> > > > >> >>>>> in
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion thread. As a result we extended KIP-149
> to
> > > > >> >> support
> > > > >> >>>>> Rich
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> functions as well.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. To as part of the Rich functions, we provided
> init
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> (ProcessorContext)
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> method. Afterwards, Dammian suggested that we should
> > not
> > > > >> >>>> provide
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ProcessorContext to users. As a result, we separated
> > the
> > > > >> >> two
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> problems
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> into
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> two separate KIPs, as it seems they can be solved in
> > > > >> >>> parallel.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - One approach we considered was :
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface ValueMapperWithKey<K, V, VR> {
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> VR apply(final K key, final V value);
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface RichValueMapper<K, V, VR> extends
> > > > >> >>>> RichFunction{
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface RichFunction {
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> void init(RecordContext recordContext);
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> void close();
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface RecordContext {
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> String applicationId();
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> TaskId taskId();
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> StreamsMetrics metrics();
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> String topic();
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> int partition();
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> long offset();
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> long timestamp();
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Map<String, Object> appConfigs();
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Map<String, Object> appConfigsWithPrefix(String
> > > > >> >> prefix);
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface ProcessorContext extends
> > RecordContext
> > > {
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> // all methods but the ones in RecordContext
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As a result:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * . All "withKey" and "withoutKey" interfaces can be
> > > > >> >>> converted
> > > > >> >>>> to
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> their
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich counterparts (with empty init() and close()
> > > methods)
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *. All related Processors will accept Rich
> interfaces
> > in
> > > > >> >>> their
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> constructors.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *. So, we convert the related "withKey" or
> > "withoutKey"
> > > > >> >>>>> interfaces
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Rich
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interface while building the topology and initialize
> > the
> > > > >> >>>> related
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> processors
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rich interfaces only.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *. We will not need to overloaded methods for rich
> > > > >> >> functions
> > > > >> >>> as
> > > > >> >>>>>> Rich
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces extend withKey interfaces. We will just
> > check
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >>>>> object
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> type
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and act accordingly.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. There was some thoughts that the above approach
> > does
> > > > not
> > > > >> >>>>> support
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> lambdas
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> so we should support only one method, only
> > > > >> >>> init(RecordContext),
> > > > >> >>>>> as
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich interfaces.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still in discussion. Personally I think Rich
> > > > >> >>> interfaces
> > > > >> >>>>> are
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> by
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition lambda-free and we should not care much
> > about
> > > > >> >> it.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Thanks to Matthias's discussion, an alternative
> we
> > > > >> >>>> considered
> > > > >> >>>>>> was
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pass in the RecordContext as method parameter. This
> > > might
> > > > >> >>> even
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> allow
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> use Lambdas and we could keep the name RichFunction
> as
> > > we
> > > > >> >>>>> preserve
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nature of being a function.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "If you go with `init()` and `close()` we basically
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> allow users to have an in-memory state for a
> function.
> > > > >> >> Thus,
> > > > >> >>> we
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> share a single instance of RichValueMapper (etc)
> over
> > > > >> >>> multiple
> > > > >> >>>>>> tasks
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we would need a supplier pattern similar to
> > > #transform().
> > > > >> >> And
> > > > >> >>>>> this
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "break the flow" of the API, as
> > > (Rich)ValueMapperSupplier
> > > > >> >>> would
> > > > >> >>>>> not
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> inherit from ValueMapper and thus we would need many
> > new
> > > > >> >>>> overload
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> for
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> KStream/KTable classes". (Copy paste from Matthias's
> > > > email)
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:18 AM Matthias J. Sax <
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> matth...@confluent.io
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we did consider this, and there is no
> consensus
> > > yet
> > > > >> >>> what
> > > > >> >>>>> the
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> best
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative is.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Jeyhun: the email thread got pretty long. Maybe
> you
> > > can
> > > > >> >>> give
> > > > >> >>>> a
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> quick
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary of the current state of the discussion?
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/17 6:04 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the explanation Jeyhun and Matthias.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just read through both KIP-149 and KIP-159
> > and
> > > am
> > > > >> >>>>>> wondering
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guys have considered a slight different approach
> for
> > > > rich
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> function,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to add the `RecordContext` into the apply
> functions
> > as
> > > > an
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> additional
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter. For example:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface RichValueMapper<V, VR> {
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR apply(final V value, final RecordContext
> > context);
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // then in KStreams
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VR> KStream<K, VR> mapValues(ValueMapper<? super
> > V, ?
> > > > >> >>>> extends
> > > > >> >>>>>> VR>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapper);
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VR> KStream<K, VR>
> > > mapValueswithContext(RichValueMapper
> > > > >> >> <?
> > > > >> >>>>> super
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> V, ?
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extends VR> mapper);
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The caveat is that it will introduces more
> > overloads;
> > > > >> >> but I
> > > > >> >>>>> think
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #.overloads are mainly introduced by 1) serde
> > > overrides
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >>>> 2)
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state-store-supplier overides, both of which can
> be
> > > > >> >> reduced
> > > > >> >>>> in
> > > > >> >>>>>> the
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> near
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future, and I felt this overloading is still
> > > worthwhile,
> > > > >> >> as
> > > > >> >>>> it
> > > > >> >>>>>> has
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following benefits:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) still allow lambda expressions.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) clearer code path (do not need to "convert"
> from
> > > > >> >>> non-rich
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> functions
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich functions)
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe this approach has already been discussed
> and I
> > > may
> > > > >> >>> have
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> overlooked
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the email thread; anyways, lmk.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Matthias J. Sax <
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> matth...@confluent.io>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Jeyhun. As already mention, the
> > overall
> > > > API
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> improvement
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas are overlapping and/or contradicting each
> > > other.
> > > > >> >> For
> > > > >> >>>>> this
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not all ideas can be accomplished and some Jira
> > might
> > > > >> >> just
> > > > >> >>>> be
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> closed
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "won't fix".
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this reason, we try to do those KIP
> discussion
> > > with
> > > > >> >>> are
> > > > >> >>>>>> large
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> scope
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get an overall picture to converge to an
> overall
> > > > >> >>>> consisted
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> API.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Jeyhun: about the overloads. Yes, we might get
> > more
> > > > >> >>>> overload.
> > > > >> >>>>>> It
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> might
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be sufficient though, to do a single
> > xxxWithContext()
> > > > >> >>>> overload
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide key+value+context. Otherwise, if might
> get
> > > too
> > > > >> >>> messy
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> having
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ValueMapper, ValueMapperWithKey,
> > > > ValueMapperWithContext,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ValueMapperWithKeyWithContext.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, we also have the "builder
> > pattern"
> > > > >> >> idea
> > > > >> >>>> as
> > > > >> >>>>> an
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> API
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change and this might mitigate the overload
> > problem.
> > > > Not
> > > > >> >>> for
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> simple
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function like map/flatMap etc but for joins and
> > > > >> >>>> aggregations.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, as I mentioned in an older
> > email,
> > > I
> > > > >> >> am
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> personally
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine to break the pure functional interface, and
> > add
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - interface WithRecordContext with method
> > > > >> >>>>>> `open(RecordContext)`
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> (or
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `init(...)`, or any better name) -- but not
> > > `close()`)
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - interface ValueMapperWithRecordContext
> extends
> > > > >> >>>>> ValueMapper,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WithRecordContext
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would allow us to avoid any overload. Of
> > course,
> > > > we
> > > > >> >>>> don't
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> get
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "pure function" interface and also sacrifices
> > > Lambdas.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am personally a little bit undecided what the
> > > better
> > > > >> >>>> option
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> might
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curious to hear what other think about this trade
> > > off.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/17 6:13 PM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guozhang,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It subsumes partially. Initially the idea was to
> > > > >> >> support
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> RichFunctions
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate interface. Throughout the discussion,
> > > > however,
> > > > >> >>> we
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> considered
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overloading the related methods (with
> RecodContext
> > > > >> >> param)
> > > > >> >>>> is
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach than providing a separate RichFunction
> > > > >> >>> interface.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:27 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wangg...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this KIP subsume this ticket as well?
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/KAFKA-4125
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Jeyhun
> Karimov <
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> je.kari...@gmail.com
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear community,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As we discussed in KIP-149 [DISCUSS] thread
> > [1], I
> > > > >> >>> would
> > > > >> >>>>> like
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiate
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KIP for rich functions (interfaces) [2].
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to get your comments.
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>> http://search-hadoop.com/m/Kafka/uyzND1PMjdk2CslH12?subj=
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Re+DISCUSS+KIP+149+Enabling+key+access+in+
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ValueTransformer+ValueMapper+
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and+ValueJoiner
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 159%3A+Introducing+Rich+functions+to+Streams
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Cheers
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Cheers
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> -Cheers
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>>> --
> > > > >> >>>>> -Cheers
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>> --
> > > > >> >>> -Cheers
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> Jeyhun
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > > -Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeyhun
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -Cheers
> > > >
> > > > Jeyhun
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > -Cheers
> >
> > Jeyhun
> >
>
