Hi Nikolay, Yes, the changes we discussed for ReadOnlyXxxStore and XxxStore should be in this KIP.
And you're right, it seems like ReadOnlySessionStore is not necessary to touch, since it doesn't reference any `long` timestamps. Thanks, -John On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:36 AM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: > Hello, Matthias. > > > His proposal is, to deprecate existing methods on `ReadOnlyWindowStore`> > and `ReadOnlySessionStore` and add them to `WindowStore` and> `SessionStore` > > Does this make sense? > > You both are experienced Kafka developers, so yes, it does make a sense to > me :). > Do we want to make this change in KIP-358 or it required another KIP? > > > Btw: the KIP misses `ReadOnlySessionStore` atm. > > Sorry, but I don't understand you. > As far as I can see, there is only 2 methods in `ReadOnlySessionStore`. > Which method should be migrated to Duration? > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/ReadOnlySessionStore.java > > В Вт, 11/09/2018 в 09:21 -0700, Matthias J. Sax пишет: > > I talked to John offline about his last suggestions, that I originally > > did not fully understand. > > > > His proposal is, to deprecate existing methods on `ReadOnlyWindowStore` > > and `ReadOnlySessionStore` and add them to `WindowStore` and > > `SessionStore` (note, all singular -- not to be confused with classes > > names plural). > > > > Btw: the KIP misses `ReadOnlySessionStore` atm. > > > > The argument is, that the `ReadOnlyXxxStore` interfaces are only exposed > > via Interactive Queries feature and for this part, using `long` is > > undesired. However, for a `Processor` that reads/writes stores on the > > hot code path, we would like to avoid the object creation overhead and > > stay with `long`. Note, that a `Processor` would use the "read-write" > > interfaces and thus, we can add the more efficient read methods using > > `long` there. > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > On 9/11/18 12:20 AM, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > > Hello, Guozhang, Bill. > > > > > > > 1) I'd suggest keeping `Punctuator#punctuate(long timestamp)` as is > > > > > > I am agree with you. > > > Currently, `Punctuator` edits are not included in KIP. > > > > > > > 2) I'm fine with keeping KeyValueStore extending > ReadOnlyKeyValueStore > > > > > > Great, currently, there is no suggested API change in `KeyValueStore` > or `ReadOnlyKeyValueStore`. > > > > > > Seems, you agree with all KIP details. > > > Can you vote, please? [1] > > > > > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e976352e7e42d459091ee66ac790b6a0de7064eac0c57760d50c983b@%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > В Пн, 10/09/2018 в 19:49 -0400, Bill Bejeck пишет: > > > > Hi Nikolay, > > > > > > > > I'm a +1 to points 1 and 2 above from Guozhang. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:58 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for picking this up! Just sharing my two cents: > > > > > > > > > > 1) I'd suggest keeping `Punctuator#punctuate(long timestamp)` as > is since > > > > > comparing with other places where we are replacing with Duration > and > > > > > Instant, this is not a user specified value as part of the DSL but > rather a > > > > > passed-in parameter, plus with high punctuation frequency creating > a new > > > > > instance of Instant may be costly. > > > > > > > > > > 2) I'm fine with keeping KeyValueStore extending > ReadOnlyKeyValueStore with > > > > > APIs of `long` as well as inheriting APIs of `Duration`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Matthias. > > > > > > > > > > > > > (4) While I agree that we might want to deprecate it, I am not > sure if > > > > > > > > > > > > this should be part of this KIP? > > > > > > > Seems to be unrelated? > > > > > > > Should this have been part of KIP-319? > > > > > > > If yes, we might still want to updated this other KIP? WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, I removed this deprecation from this KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, tell me, is there anything else that should be improved > to make > > > > > > this KIP ready to be implemented. > > > > > > > > > > > > В Пт, 07/09/2018 в 17:06 -0700, Matthias J. Sax пишет: > > > > > > > (1) Sounds good to me, to just use IllegalArgumentException > for both -- > > > > > > > and thanks for pointing out that Duration can be negative and > we need > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > check for this. For the KIP, it would be nice to add to all > methods > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > (even if we don't do it in the code but only document in > JavaDocs). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) I would argue for a new single method interface. Not sure > about the > > > > > > > name though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (3) Even if `#fetch(K, K, long, long)` and `#fetchAll(long, > long)` is > > > > > > > _currently_ not used internally, I would still argue they are > both dual > > > > > > > use -- we might all a new DSL operator at any point that uses > those > > > > > > > methods. Thus to be "future prove" I would consider them dual > use. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the ReadOnlyWindowStore is only used by IQ, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This contradicts your other statement: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.kafka.streams.state.ReadOnlyWindowStore#fetch(K, > long) is > > > > > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > in KStreamWindowAggregate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or do you suggest to move `fetch(K, long)` from > `ReadOnlyWindowStore` > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > `WindowStore` ? This would not make sense IMHO, as > `WindowStore extends > > > > > > > ReadOnlyWindowStore` and thus, we would loose this method for > IQ. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (4) While I agree that we might want to deprecate it, I am not > sure if > > > > > > > this should be part of this KIP? Seems to be unrelated? Should > this > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > been part of KIP-319? If yes, we might still want to updated > this other > > > > > > > KIP? WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/18 12:09 PM, John Roesler wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1): Duration can be negative, just like long. We need to > enforce any > > > > > > > > bounds that we currently enforce. We don't need the `throws` > > > > > > > > > > > > declaration > > > > > > > > for runtime exceptions, but the potential > IllegalArgumentException > > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > be documented in the javadoc for these methods. I still feel > that > > > > > > > > > > > > surfacing > > > > > > > > the ArithmeticException directly would not be a great > experience, so > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > still advocate for wrapping it in an > IllegalArgumentException that > > > > > > > > > > > > explains > > > > > > > > our upper bound for Duration is "max-long number of > milliseconds" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2): I agree with your performance intuition. I don't think > creating > > > > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > object per call to punctuate is going to substantially > affect the > > > > > > > > performance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the deeper problem with Punctuator is that it's > currently a > > > > > > > > > > SAM > > > > > > > > interface. If we add a new method to it, we break the source > code of > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone > > > > > > > > passing a function. We can add the new method with a default > > > > > > > > implementation, as Nikolay suggested, but then you get into > figuring > > > > > > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > which one to default, and no one's happy. Alternatively, we > can just > > > > > > > > > > > > make a > > > > > > > > brand new interface that is still a single method (but an > Instant) > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > add > > > > > > > > the appropriate overloads and deprecate the old ones. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (3): I disagree. I think only two methods are dual use, and > we should > > > > > > > > separate the internal from external usages. The internal > usage should > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > added to WindowStore. > > > > > > > > org.apache.kafka.streams.state.ReadOnlyWindowStore#fetch(K, > long) is > > > > > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > in KStreamWindowAggregate. > > > > > > > > org.apache.kafka.streams.state.ReadOnlyWindowStore#fetch(K, > long, > > > > > > > > > > > > long) is > > > > > > > > used in KStreamKStreamJoin. > > > > > > > > Both of these usages are as WindowStore, so adding these > interfaces > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > WindowStore would be transparent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.kafka.streams.state.ReadOnlyWindowStore#fetch(K, > K, long, > > > > > > > > > > > > long) > > > > > > > > is only used for IQ > > > > > > > > > org.apache.kafka.streams.state.ReadOnlyWindowStore#fetchAll(long, > > > > > > > > > > > > long) is > > > > > > > > only used for IQ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the ReadOnlyWindowStore is only used by IQ, we can > safely say > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > *all* of its methods are external use and can be deprecated > and > > > > > > > > > > > > replaced. > > > > > > > > The first two usages I noted are WindowStore usages, not > > > > > > > > ReadOnlyWindowStores, and WindowStore is only used > *internally*, so > > > > > > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > free to offer `long` methods if needed for performance > reasons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense? The same reasoning extends to the > other stores. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (4) Yes, that was my suggestion. I'm not sure if anyone is > actually > > > > > > > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > this variant, so it seemed like a good time to just > deprecate it and > > > > > > > > > > > > see. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 10:21 AM Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Matthias. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, for feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) Some methods declare `throws > IllegalArgumentException`, > > > > > > > > > > others> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `duration.toMillis()` can throw ArithmeticException. > > > > > > > > > It can happen if overflow occurs during conversion. > > > > > > > > > Please, see source of jdk method Duration#toMillis. > > > > > > > > > Task author suggest to wrap it to IllegalArgumentException. > > > > > > > > > I think we should add `throws IllegalArgumentException` > for all > > > > > > > > > > > > method > > > > > > > > > with Duration parameter. > > > > > > > > > (I updated KIP with this throws) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (3) ReadOnlyWindowStore: All three methods are dual use > and I > > > > > > > > > > > > think we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should not deprecate them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is my typo, already fixed. > > > > > > > > > I propose to add new methods to `ReadOnlyWindowStore`. > > > > > > > > > No methods will become deprecated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (4) Stores: 3 methods are listed as deprecated but only > 2 new > > > > > > > > > > > > methods > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are added. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My proposal based on John Roesler mail [1]: > > > > > > > > > "10. Stores: I think we can just deprecate without > replacement the > > > > > > > > > > > > method > > > > > > > > > that takes `segmentInterval`." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg91348.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Чт, 06/09/2018 в 21:04 -0700, Matthias J. Sax пишет: > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for updating the KIP! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couple of minor follow ups: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) Some methods declare `throws > IllegalArgumentException`, > > > > > > > > > > others > > > > > > > > > > don't. It's runtime exception and thus it's not required > to > > > > > > > > > > > > declare it > > > > > > > > > > -- it just looks inconsistent in the KIP and maybe it's > > > > > > > > > > > > inconsistent in > > > > > > > > > > the code, too. I am not sure if it is possible to > provide a > > > > > > > > > > > > negative > > > > > > > > > > Duration? If not, we would not need to check the > provided value > > > > > > > > > > > > and can > > > > > > > > > > remove the declaration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) About punctuations: I still think, it would be ok to > change > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > callback from `long` to `Instance` -- even if it is > possible to > > > > > > > > > > > > register > > > > > > > > > > a punctuation on a ms-basis, in practice many people used > > > > > > > > > > > > schedules in > > > > > > > > > > the range of seconds or larger. Thus, I don't think > there will > > > > > > > > > > be a > > > > > > > > > > performance penalty. Of course, we can still revisit > this later, > > > > > > > > > > > > too. > > > > > > > > > > John and Bill, you did not comment on this. Would also > be good to > > > > > > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > > feedback from Guozhang about this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (3) ReadOnlyWindowStore: All three methods are dual use > and I > > > > > > > > > > > > think we > > > > > > > > > > should not deprecate them. However, we can add the new > proposed > > > > > > > > > > > > methods > > > > > > > > > > in parallel -- the names can be the same without > conflict as the > > > > > > > > > > parameter lists are different. (Or did you just forget > to remove > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > comment line?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (4) Stores: 3 methods are listed as deprecated but only > 2 new > > > > > > > > > > > > methods > > > > > > > > > > are added. Maybe this was discussed already, but I can't > recall > > > > > > > > > > > > why? Can > > > > > > > > > > you elaborate? Or should this deprecation be actually be > part of > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-328 > > > > > > > > > > (\cc John)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ps: there are many KIPs in-flight in parallel, and it > takes some > > > > > > > > > > > > time to > > > > > > > > > > get around. Please be patient :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/5/18 12:25 AM, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Guys. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've started a VOTE [1], but seems commiters have no > chance to > > > > > > > > > > > > look at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP for now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you tell me, is it OK? > > > > > > > > > > > Should I wait for feedback? For how long? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or something in KIP should be improved before voting? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e976352e7e42d459091ee66ac790b6 > > > > > > a0de7064eac0c57760d50c983b@%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Пт, 24/08/2018 в 10:36 -0700, Matthias J. Sax пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > > It's tricky... :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some APIs have "dual use" as I mentioned in my first > reply. I > > > > > > > > > > > > agree > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > it would be good to avoid abstract class and use > interfaces > > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > As long as the change is source code compatible, it > should be > > > > > > > > > > > > fine > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO > > > > > > > > > > > > -- we need to document binary incompatibility of > course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's best, if the KIPs gets update with a > proposal on > > > > > > > > > > > > how to > > > > > > > > > > > > handle "dual use" parts. It's easier to discuss if > it's > > > > > > > > > > > > written down > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For `ProcessorContext#schedule()`, you are right > John: it's > > > > > > > > > > > > seems > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fine > > > > > > > > > > > > to use `Duration`, as it won't be called often > (usually only > > > > > > > > > > > > within > > > > > > > > > > > > `Processor#init()`) -- I mixed it up with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `Punctuator#punctuate(long)`. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, thinking about this twice, we might even > want to > > > > > > > > > > > > update both > > > > > > > > > > > > methods. Punctuation callbacks don't happen every > millisecond > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thus > > > > > > > > > > > > the overhead to use `Instance` should not be a > problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Nikolay: it seems the KIP does not mention > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `Punctuator#punctuate(long)` > > > > > > > > > > > > -- should we add it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/24/18 10:11 AM, John Roesler wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quick afterthought: I guess that `Window` is > exposed to the > > > > > > > > > > > > API via > > > > > > > > > > > > > `Windowed` keys. I think it would be fine to not > deprecate > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `long` start > > > > > > > > > > > > > and end, but add `Instant` variants for people > preferring > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interface. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:10 AM John Roesler < > > > > > > > > > > > > j...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Matthias, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for pointing that out. I agree that we > only really > > > > > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to change > > > > > > > > > > > > > > methods that are API-facing, and we probably > want to > > > > > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Duration/Instant for Streams-facing members. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like I said in my last email, I think the whole > Windows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interface is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Streams-facing, and the builders we provide are > otherwise > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API-facing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Likewise, `Window` is Streams-facing, so start > and end > > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Duration. In SessionWindows, inactivityGap is > > > > > > > > > > > > Streams-facing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I actually think that > ProcessorContext#schedule() is > > > > > > > > > > > > API-facing, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should use Duration. The rationale is that > streams > > > > > > > > > > > > processing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > doesn't call > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this method, only implementer of Processor do. > Does that > > > > > > > > > > > > seem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, it seems like ReadOnlyWindowStore#fetch() > (2x) and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #fetchAll() are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API-facing (for IQ). When we call fetch() during > > > > > > > > > > > > processing, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's actually > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `WindowStore#fetch()`. Maybe we should move > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "WindowStoreIterator<V> fetch(K > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key, long timeFrom, long timeTo)" to the > WindowStore > > > > > > > > > > > > interface > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and make > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all the ReadOnlyWindowStore methods take > Durations. And > > > > > > > > > > > > likewise > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SessionStore interfaces. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:51 AM John Roesler < > > > > > > > > > > > > j...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First: I wanted to let you know that we have > dropped > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `grace(long)` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > method from the Windows interface, but we do > still need > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transition the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same method on TimeWindows and JoinWindows ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5536) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have also been thinking it would be nice to > replace > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `Windows` with an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interface, but for different reasons. I think > we can > > > > > > > > > > > > even do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it without > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > breaking source compatibility (but it would > break > > > > > > > > > > binary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > create a new interface `WindowSpec`, deprecate > > > > > > > > > > `Windows` > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implement `WindowSpec`, add a new method: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `KGroupedStream#windowedBy(WindowSpec)`, and > deprecate > > > > > > > > > > > > the old > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I don't think this would solve your > problem, > > > > > > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Windows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interface has two audiences: the DSL user and > the > > > > > > > > > > > > implementer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who wishes to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provide a new kind of windowing. I think we > want to > > > > > > > > > > > > provide > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Duration to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > former, and long or Duration is fine for the > latter. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both of these > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > audiences are "external", so having an > "internal" > > > > > > > > > > > > interface > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > won't fit the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think my last PR #5536 actually helps the > situation > > > > > > > > > > > > quite a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bit. Let's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > forget about the deprecated members. Now, all > the > > > > > > > > > > public > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > members of Windows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are abstract methods, so Windows is > effectively an > > > > > > > > > > > > interface > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now. Here's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how it looks: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public abstract class Windows<W extends > Window> { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public abstract Map<Long, W> windowsFor(final > long > > > > > > > > > > > > timestamp); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public abstract long size(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public abstract long gracePeriodMs(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notice that there is no part of this involved > with the > > > > > > > > > > > > DSL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you're > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > writing a topology, you don't call any of these > > > > > > > > > > methods. > > > > > > It's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > strictly an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interface that tells a Windows implementation > what > > > > > > > > > > > > Streams > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expects from it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A very simple implementation could have no > builder > > > > > > > > > > > > methods at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all and just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return fixed answers to these method calls > (this is > > > > > > > > > > > > basically > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > UnlimitedWindows does). It seems like, if we > want to > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > long > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > millis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internally, then we just need to leave Windows > alone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we do want to change is the builder > methods in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TimeWindows, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JoinWindows, and UnlimitedWindows. For example, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `TimeWindows#of(long)` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would become `TimeWindows#of(Duration)`, etc. > These are > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DSL methods. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that make sense? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 8:59 AM Nikolay > Izhikov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Mathias. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, it might make sense to keep old and > just add > > > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ones? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I understand, we will keep old > methods > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prevent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public API backward compatibility. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with you, methods that used > internally > > > > > > > > > > > > shouldn't be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > End users can use the "nicer" new ones, > while we > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing ones internally? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure if it would be possible to keep > the old > > > > > > > > > > ones > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without exposing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them as public API? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, when we decide to remove methods > with `long` > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public API, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we can do the following: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Create an interface like > `WindowsInternal`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Change Windows to an interface. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Create package-private implementation > > > > > > > > > > `WindowsImpl`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > package org.apache.kafka.streams. > > > > > > > > > > > > kstream.internals; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public interface WindowsInternal { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public long start(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public long end(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > //etc... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > package > org.apache.kafka.streams.kstream; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public interface Windows<W extends > Window> { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public Instant start(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > public Instant end(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > //... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class WindowsImpl<W extends Window> > > > > > > > > > > implements > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Windows<W>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WindowsInternal { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, in public API we will expose only > `Windows` > > > > > > > > > > > > interface > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and internally > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we can use `WindowsInternal` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, of course, this will be huge changes in > public > > > > > > > > > > > > API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think about this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think in this KIP we shouldn't deprecate > methods, > > > > > > > > > > > > that are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internally. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I changed it, now my proposal is just add new > > > > > > > > > > methods. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, let me know if anything more need to > be done. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Ср, 22/08/2018 в 17:29 -0700, Matthias J. > Sax > > > > > > > > > > пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From my understanding, the idea of the KIP > is to > > > > > > > > > > > > improve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the public API > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at DSL level. However, not all public > methods > > > > > > > > > > listed > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > part of DSL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level API, but part of runtime API. Those > methods > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > called during > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > processing and are on the hot code path. I > am not > > > > > > > > > > > > sure, if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we want to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > update those methods. We should carefully > think > > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this, and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consider > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to keep Long/long type to keep runtime > overhead > > > > > > > > > > > > small. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note, that the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > methods I mention are not required to > specify a > > > > > > > > > > > > program > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > using the DSL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and thus is questionable if the DSL API > would be > > > > > > > > > > > > improved > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if we change > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the methods. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's unfortunate, that some part of the > public API > > > > > > > > > > > > stretch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the DSL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > builder part as well as the runtime part... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This affects the following methods (please > double > > > > > > > > > > > > check if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I missed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Windows#windowsFor() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Window#start() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Window#end() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - JoinWindows#windowFor() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - SessionWindows#inactivitiyGap() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - TimeWindows#windowFor() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - UnlimitedWindows#windowFor() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ProcessorContext#schedule() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ReadOnlyWindowStore#fetch() (2x) and > #fetchAll() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - SessionStore#findSessions() (2x) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > TimeWindowedDeserializer#getWindowSize() (it's > > > > > > > > > > > > unused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > atm, but I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could imagine that it might be use on the > hot code > > > > > > > > > > > > path in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the furture) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So methods have "dual" use and might be > called > > > > > > > > > > > > externally > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internally: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Window#start() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Window#end() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ReadOnlyWindowStore#fetch() (2x) and > #fetchAll() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - SessionStore#findSessions() (2x) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus, it might make sense to keep old and > just add > > > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ones? End users > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can use the "nicer" new ones, while we can > still > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > existing ones > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internally? Not sure if it would be > possible to > > > > > > > > > > keep > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > old ones > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without exposing them as public API? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think about this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/21/18 11:41 PM, Nikolay Izhikov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear, commiters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, pay attention to this KIP and > share your > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вт, 21/08/2018 в 11:14 -0500, John > Roesler > > > > > > > > > > пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll solicit more reviews. Let's get > at least > > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > committer to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chime in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > before we start a vote (since we need > their > > > > > > > > > > > > approval > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:39 PM > Nikolay > > > > > > > > > > Izhikov > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Ted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've edit KIP and change proposal to > > > > > > > > > > > > `windowSize`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, any other comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Вс, 19/08/2018 в 14:57 -0700, Ted > Yu пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bq. // or just Duration > windowSize(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to the above choice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The duration is obvious from the > return > > > > > > > > > > > > type. For > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > getter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > methods, we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use get as prefix (as least for > new code). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 8:03 AM > Nikolay > > > > > > > > > > > > Izhikov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nizhi...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, John. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for your > feedback! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've addressed all your comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, see my answers and let > my know is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything in KIP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] needs to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The correct choice is actually > > > > > > > > > > > > "Instant", not> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "LocalDateTime" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've changed the methods > proposed in KIP > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use Instant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I noticed some recent APIs > are> missing > > > > > > > > > > > > (see > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIP-328) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those APIs were just added and > have > > > > > > > > > > > > never been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > released... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've added new methods to KIP > [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not released methods marked for > remove. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any existing method that's > already > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecated, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't bother > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transitioning it to Duration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IllegalArgumentException... we > should > > > > > > > > > > > > plan to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mention this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > javadoc for those methods. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Stores, windowSize and > > > > > > > > > > segmentInterval > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should also be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > durations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > StreamsMetrics, recordLatency > ... this > > > > > > > > > > > > one is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > better left > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. I removed this method from > KIP [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two more questions question about > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. We have serveral methods > without > > > > > > > > > > > > parameters. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In java we can't have two > methods with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > parameters with the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wouldn't compile. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So we have to rename new > methods. Please, > > > > > > > > > > > > see > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > names and share > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your thoughts: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Windows { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long size() -> Duration > windowSize(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Window { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long start() -> Instant > startTime(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long end() -> Instant > endTime(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SessionWindows { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long inactivityGap() -> > Duration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inactivityGapDuration(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TimeWindowedDeserializer { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Long getWindowSize() -> > Duration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > getWindowSizeDuration(); // or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Duration windowSize(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SessionBytesStoreSupplier { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long retentionPeriod() -> > Duration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > retentionPeriodDuration(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WindowBytesStoreSupplier { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long windowSize() -> Duration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > windowSizeDuration(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long retentionPeriod() -> > Duration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > retentionPeriodDuration(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Do we want to use Duration > and Instant > > > > > > > > > > > > inside > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementations? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IGNITE-7277: "Durations > potentially > > > > > > > > > > worsen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > memory pressure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and gc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > performance, so internally, we > will still > > > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > longMs as the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > representation." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IGNITE-7222: Duration used to > store > > > > > > > > > > > > retention. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > > > > > > > > > 358%3A+Migrate+Streams+API+to+Duration+instead+of+long+ms+times > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/commit/ > > > > > > > > > > > > b3771ba22acad7870e38ff7f58820c5b50946787#diff- > > > > > > 47289575d3e3e2449f27b3a7b6788e1aR64 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Пт, 17/08/2018 в 14:46 -0500, > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Roesler > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Nikolay, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this very nice KIP! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To answer your questions: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Correct, we should not > delete > > > > > > > > > > existing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > methods that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > released, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Yes, we should deprecate > the 'long' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > variants so that we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can drop > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > later on. Personally, I like > to mention > > > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecated the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > method > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so everyone can see later on > how long > > > > > > > > > > > > it's been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecated, but this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > controversial, so let's let > other weigh > > > > > > > > > > > > in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I think you're asking > whether it's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > appropriate to drop > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the "Ms" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suffix, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I think yes. So "long > > > > > > > > > > > > inactivityGapMs" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would become > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Duration > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inactivityGap". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the places where the > parameter's > > > > > > > > > > name > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "duration", I think > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pick something more > descriptive (I > > > > > > > > > > > > realize it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was already > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "durationMs"; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this is just a good time to > improve > > > > > > > > > > it). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, you're correct that we > shouldn't > > > > > > > > > > > > use a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Duration to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > represent a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in time, like "startTime". The > correct > > > > > > > > > > > > choice > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is actually > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Instant", > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "LocalDateTime", though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32437550/whats-the- > > > > > > > > > > > > difference-between-instant-and-localdatetime > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > explains why. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also had a few notes on the > KIP > > > > > > > > > > itself: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. You might want to pull > trunk again. > > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noticed some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > recent APIs are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing (see KIP-328). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Speaking of KIP-328: those > APIs were > > > > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have never > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > released, so there's no need to > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecate the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > methods, you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can just > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. For any existing method > that's > > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecated, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't bother > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > transitioning it to Duration. > I think > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > examples I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
