Hi John, Thanks for the updated KIP, +1 from me, and one minor suggestion:
Following your suggestion of the differentiation of `skipped-records` v.s. `late-event-drop`, we should probably consider moving the scenarios where records got ignored due the window not being available any more in windowed aggregation operators from the `skipped-records` metrics recording to the `late-event-drop` metrics recording. Guozhang On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the KIP! > > +1 > > -Bill > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:42 PM Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:46 AM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > Hello devs, > > > > > > The discussion of KIP-328 has gone some time with no new comments, so I > > am > > > calling for a vote! > > > > > > Here's the KIP: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/sQU0BQ > > > > > > The basic idea is to provide: > > > * more usable control over update rate (vs the current state store > > caches) > > > * the final-result-for-windowed-computations feature which several > people > > > have requested > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -John > > > > > > -- -- Guozhang
