Hi Adam, Thank you for your response! Dear community members, do you have any other thoughts on this KIP? Would be great if you share them!
Regards, Valeria сб, 16 мар. 2019 г. в 18:16, Adam Bellemare <adam.bellem...@gmail.com>: > Hi Valeria > > I am thinking that a full map function via configuration is very unlikely > to be feasible. At that point, it would be best for the user to create > their own custom transformation. > > I think that since your function is indeed just an extension of masking > that it is reasonable as presented. I don't have any other concerns with > the proposal, but it would be good to hear from others. > > Thanks > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:38 AM Valeria Vasylieva < > valeria.vasyli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Thank you for your interest. Here is the list of currently supported > > transformations in Connect: > > https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#connect_transforms. > > As I can see, there is no "map" transformation in this list and all other > > SMTs do not support functionality described in a KIP. > > I cannot find the way to achieve the same result using existing > > transformations. > > The request, described in an issue was just to add this custom masking > > functionality to the MaskField SMT, but if there is a need we can evolve > > this issue and create separate "map" transformation, > > it may be more useful but will require more effort, so it is better to do > > it as separate issue. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Valeria > > > > пт, 15 мар. 2019 г. в 17:35, Adam Bellemare <adam.bellem...@gmail.com>: > > > > > Hi Valeria > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. I admit my knowledge on Kafka Connect transforms > is a > > > bit rusty, however - Is there any other way to currently achieve this > > same > > > functionality outlined in your KIP using existing transforms? > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 12:05 PM Valeria Vasylieva < > > > valeria.vasyli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear community members, > > > > > > > > I would be very grateful if you leave any feedback on this KIP. It > will > > > > help me to understand if change is useful or not and to decide on > > further > > > > actions. > > > > > > > > Thank you in advance, > > > > Valeria > > > > > > > > пн, 11 мар. 2019 г. в 13:20, Valeria Vasylieva < > > > > valeria.vasyli...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion about adding new functionality > to > > > > > MaskField SMT. The existing implementation allows to mask out any > > field > > > > > value with the null equivalent of the field type. > > > > > > > > > > I suggest to add a possibility to provide a literal replacement for > > the > > > > > field. This way you can mask out any PII info (IP, SSN etc.) with > any > > > > > custom replacement. > > > > > > > > > > It is a short KIP which does not require major changes, but could > > help > > > to > > > > > make this transformation more useful for the client. > > > > > > > > > > The KIP is here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-437%3A+Custom+replacement+for+MaskField+SMT > > > > > > > > > > I would be glad to receive any feedback on this KIP. > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > Valeria > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
