Yup, lazy copy-paste punishment :P
Guozhang On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > -- -- Guozhang
