вт, 19 мар. 2019 г. в 17:59, Valeria Vasylieva <valeria.vasyli...@gmail.com >:
> 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 >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
