> I do not mean that it is "used", but if what you meant is that you would prefer to use that field instead of a header? > This is in relation to a previous point of yours:
I think maybe we have a mis-communication here: I'm not against the idea of using headers, but just trying to argue that we could make `timestamp` field a special config value that is referring to the timestamp field in the metadata. So from log cleaner's pov: 1. if the config value is "offset", look into the offset field, 2. if the config value is "timestamp", look into the offset field; 2. otherwise, say the config value is "foo", search for key "foo" in the message header. > get super-inconsistent results, which make me reluctant to rely on it: https://codebunk.com/b/704211525/ Hmm, could you elaborate which part of the results are inconsistent? I cannot tell directly from the console output of the code you posted. Guozhang On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Luís Cabral <luis_cab...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi Guozhang, > > > bq. I'm not sure I understand you statement that it is used to determine > the "version" of the record > > I do not mean that it is "used", but if what you meant is that you would > prefer to use that field instead of a header? > This is in relation to a previous point of yours: > >>> 1) I'm also in favor of making the `timestamp` a preserved config > value along with `offset`, for which we would not go into the headers to > look for the matching key, but directly look into the timestamp field of > the message. > > > > bq. Regarding the byte arrays: I think byte arrays are indeed > comparable, right? > > As far as I am aware, they are not comparable. Then again, I am not aware > of everything that exists everywhere :) > I just experimented with the code you mentioned and get super-inconsistent > results, which make me reluctant to rely on it: https://codebunk.com/b/ > 704211525/ > > > > Thank you again for the comments. > -- -- Guozhang
