bq. 2. if the config value is "timestamp", look into the offset field;
I think you meant looking into timestamp field. Cheers On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >
