I updated the KIP to not include forwarding via child-index with the new `To` class.
I also updated the PR accordingly.
It seems there are not further comments atm. I am going to start a VOTE
thread. Of course, you can always follow up on this thread.
-Matthias
On 2/7/18 2:10 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> I intend to suggest we piggyback this change, just for connivence.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 7:25 PM, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
>> I am open to remove the index API and also open to piggyback this change
>> on this KIP... Not sure if this was the intention of your comment? Or
>> should be have a separate KIP for this?
>>
>> Not sure, what other think about removing the index API?
>>
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>> On 2/5/18 4:13 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
>>> This is not included in this KIP, but I'm wondering if we should still
>>> support forwarding to a child with index.
>>>
>>> Because 1) if users are using DSL, they would probably never use this API
>>> since the ordering of the child is hard to reason from a DSL anyways.
>>> 2) if users are using PAPI, they would just use the other
>>> overload with child name.
>>>
>>> In fact the index currently is only used at KStream.branch internally,
>> and
>>> maybe we can just keep a map from predicate to child name inside Filter
>>> operator, so that we do not use it at all. Just as a hindsight, I feel
>> this
>>> overloading API is not useful to users at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> Guozhang
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> I updated the KIP accordingly and started work on the PR to see if this
>>>> `To` interface work nicely.
>>>>
>>>> -Matthias
>>>>
>>>> On 2/1/18 4:00 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
>>>>> Yeah.
>>>>> Cleaner in this formation.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> `To` works for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Matthias J. Sax <
>> matth...@confluent.io>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Paolo:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The timestamp will be used to set the message/record metadata
>> timestamp
>>>>>>> on `Producer.send(new ProducerRecord(...,timestamp,...))`.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @Bill,Ted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Might be a good idea. I was thinking about the name, and came up with
>>>>>> `To`:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> context.forward(key, value, To.child("processorX").
>> withTimestamp(5));
>>>>>>>> context.forward(key, value, To.child(1).withTimestamp(10));
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Without specifying the downstream child processor:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> context.forward(key, value, To.all().withTimestamp(5));
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/1/18 8:45 AM, Ted Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>> I like Bill's idea (pending a better name for the Forwarded).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could we consider taking an approach similar to what was done in
>>>>>> KIP-182
>>>>>>>>> with regards to overloading?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meaning we could add a "Forwarded" object (horrible name I know)
>> with
>>>>>>>>> methods withTimestamp, withChildName, and withChildIndex. To handle
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> case when both a child-name and child-index is provided we could
>>>> throw
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> exception.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then we could reduce the overloaded {{forward}} methods from 6 to
>> 2.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Paolo Patierno <ppatie...@live.com
>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> just a question : what will be the timestamp "type" in the new
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the wire ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Paolo.
>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> From: Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io>
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:06 AM
>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] KIP-251: Allow timestamp manipulation in
>>>> Processor
>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I want to propose a new KIP for Kafka Streams that allows
>> timestamp
>>>>>>>>>> manipulation at Processor API level.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>>>>>>>>>> 251%3A+Allow+timestamp+manipulation+in+Processor+API
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your feedback.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
