Sorry for coming late to the party.
As for the naming I'm in favor of RecordProcessor as well.
I agree that we should not take on doing all of the package movements as
part of this KIP, especially as John has pointed out, it will be an
opportunity to discuss some clean-up on individual classes which I envision
becoming another somewhat involved process.
For the end goal, if possible, here's what I propose.
1. We keep the scope of the KIP the same, *but we only implement* *it in
phases*
2. Phase one could include what Guozhang had proposed earlier namely
1. > 1.a) modifying ProcessorContext only with the output types on
forward.
> 1.b) modifying Transformer signature to have generics of
ProcessorContext,
> and then lift the restricting of not using punctuate: if user did
not
> follow the enforced typing and just code without generics, they
will get
> warning at compile time and get run-time error if they forward
wrong-typed
> records, which I think would be acceptable.
3. Then we could tackle other pieces in an incremental manner as we see
what makes sense
Just my 2cents
-Bill
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:22 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Yeah I think we should not do all the repackaging as part of this KIP as
> well (we can just do the movement of the Processor / ProcessorSupplier),
> but I think we need to discuss the end goal here since otherwise we may do
> the repackaging of Processor in this KIP, but only later on realizing that
> other re-packagings are not our favorite solutions.
>
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:06 PM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> > Hey Guozhang,
> >
> > Thanks for the idea! I'm wondering if we could take a middle ground
> > and take your proposed layout as a "roadmap", while only actually
> > moving the classes that are already involved in this KIP.
> >
> > The reason I ask is not just to control the scope of this KIP, but
> > also, I think that if we move other classes to new packages, we might
> > also want to take the opportunity to clean up other things about them.
> > But each one of those would become a discussion point of its own, so
> > it seems the discussion would become intractable. FWIW, I do like your
> > idea for precisely this reason, it creates opportunities for us to
> > consider other changes that we are simply not able to make without
> > breaking source compatibility.
> >
> > If the others feel "kind of favorable" with this overall vision, maybe
> > we can make one or more Jira tickets to capture it, and then just
> > alter _this_ proposal to `processor.api.Processor` (etc).
> >
> > WDYT?
> > -John
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:17 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello John,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your detailed explanation, I've done some quick checks on
> some
> > > existing examples that heavily used Processor and the results also
> makes
> > me
> > > worried about my previous statements that "the breakage would not be
> > big".
> > > I agree we should maintain compatibility.
> > >
> > > About the naming itself, I'm actually a bit inclined into sub-packages
> > than
> > > renamed new classes, and my motivations are that our current packaging
> is
> > > already quite coarsen grained and sometimes ill-placed, and hence maybe
> > we
> > > can take this change along with some clean up on packages (but again,
> we
> > > should follow the deprecate - removal path). What I'm thinking is:
> > >
> > > -------------------
> > >
> > > processor/: StateRestoreCallback/AbstractNotifyingRestoreCallback,
> > (deprecated
> > > later, same meaning for other cross-throughs), ProcessContest,
> > > RecordContext, Punctuator, PunctuationType, To, Cancellable (are the
> only
> > > things left)
> > >
> > > (new) processor/api/: Processor, ProcessorSupplier (and of course,
> these
> > > two classes can be strong typed)
> > >
> > > state/: StateStore, BatchingStateRestoreCallback,
> > > AbstractNotifyingBatchingRestoreCallback (moved from processor/),
> > > PartitionGrouper, WindowStoreIterator, StateSerdes (this one can be
> moved
> > > into state/internals), TimestampedByteStore (we can move this to
> > internals
> > > since store types would use vat by default, see below),
> ValueAndTimestamp
> > >
> > > (new) state/factory/: Stores, StoreBuilder, StoreSupplier; *BUT* the
> new
> > > Stores would not have timestampedXXBuilder APIs since the default
> > > StoreSupplier / StoreBuilder value types are ValueAndTimestamp already.
> > >
> > > (new) state/queryable/: QueryableStoreType, QueryableStoreTypes,
> HostInfo
> > >
> > > (new) state/keyValue/: KeyValueXXX classes, and also the same for
> > > state/sessionWindow and state/timeWindow; *BUT* here we use
> > > ValueAndTimestamp as value types of those APIs directly, and also
> > > TimestampedKeyValue/WindowStore would be deprecated.
> > >
> > > (new) kstream/api/: KStream, KTable, GroupedKStream (renamed from
> > > KGroupedStream), GroupedKTable (renamed from KGroupedTable),
> > > TimeWindowedKStream, SessionWindowedKStream, GlobalKTable
> > >
> > > (new) kstream/operator/: Aggregator, ForeachFunction, ... , Merger and
> > > Grouped, Joined, Materialized, ... , Printed and Transformer,
> > > TransformerSupplier.
> > >
> > > (new) kstream/window/: Window, Windows, Windowed, TimeWindows,
> > > SessionWindows, UnlimitedWindows, JoinWindows, WindowedSerdes,
> > > Time/SessionWindowedSerialized/Deserializer.
> > >
> > > (new) configure/: RocksDBConfigSetter, TopicNameExtractor,
> > > TimestampExtractor, UsePreviousTimeOnInvalidTimestamp,
> > > WallclockTimestampExtractor, ExtractRecordMetadataTimestamp,
> > > FailOnInvalidTimestamp, LogAndSkipOnInvalidTimestamp,
> > StateRestoreListener,
> > >
> > > (new) metadata/: StreamsMetadata, ThreadMetadata, TaskMetadata, TaskId
> > >
> > > Still, any xxx/internals packages are declared as inner classes, but
> > other
> > > xxx/yyy packages are declared as public APIs.
> > >
> > > -------------------
> > >
> > > This is a very wild thought and I can totally understand if people feel
> > > this is too much since it definitely enlarges the scope of this KIP a
> lot
> > > :) just trying to play a devil's advocate here to do major refactoring
> > and
> > > avoid renaming Processor classes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Guozhang
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:51 PM Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think `RecordProcessor` is a good name.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Matthias
> > > >
> > > > On 6/21/19 5:09 PM, John Roesler wrote:
> > > > > After kicking the naming around a bit more, it seems like any
> package
> > > > > name change is a bit "weird" because it fragments the package and
> > > > > directory structure. If we can come up with a reasonable name for
> the
> > > > > interface after all, it seems like the better choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > The real challenge is that the existing name "Processor" seems just
> > > > > about perfect. In picking a new name, we need to consider the
> > ultimate
> > > > > state, after the deprecation period, when we entirely remove
> > > > > Processor. In this context, TypedProcessor seems a little odd to
> me,
> > > > > because it seems to imply that there should also be an "untyped
> > > > > processor".
> > > > >
> > > > > After kicking around a few other ideas, what does everyone think
> > about
> > > > > "RecordProcessor"? I _think_ maybe it stands on its own just fine,
> > > > > because it's a thing that processes... records?
> > > > >
> > > > > If others agree with this, I can change the proposal to
> > RecordProcessor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > -John
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 6:42 PM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I've updated the KIP with the feedback so far.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The naming question is still the biggest (only?) outstanding
> issue.
> > It
> > > > >> would be good to hear some more thoughts on it.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As we stand now, there's one vote for changing the package name to
> > > > >> something like 'typedprocessor', one for changing the interface to
> > > > >> TypedProcessor (as in the PoC), and one for just changing the
> > > > >> Processor interface in-place, breaking source compatibility.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> How can we resolve this decision?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> -John
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 5:44 PM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks for the feedback, Guozhang and Matthias,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regarding motivation: I'll update the wiki. Briefly:
> > > > >>> * Any processor can benefit. Imagine a pure user of the
> > ProcessorAPI
> > > > >>> who has very complex processing logic. I have seen several
> > processor
> > > > >>> implementation that are hundreds of lines long and call
> > > > >>> `context.forward` in many different locations and branches. In
> > such an
> > > > >>> implementation, it would be very easy to have a bug in a rarely
> > used
> > > > >>> branch that forwards the wrong kind of value. This would
> > structurally
> > > > >>> prevent that from happening.
> > > > >>> * Also, anyone who heavily uses the ProcessorAPI would likely
> have
> > > > >>> developed helper methods to wire together processors, just as we
> > have
> > > > >>> in the DSL implementation. This change would enable them to
> ensure
> > at
> > > > >>> compile time that they are actually wiring together compatible
> > types.
> > > > >>> This was actually _my_ original motivation, since I found it very
> > > > >>> difficult and time consuming to follow the Streams DSL internal
> > > > >>> builders.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regarding breaking the source compatibility of Processor: I would
> > > > >>> _love_ to side-step the naming problem, but I really don't know
> if
> > > > >>> it's excusable to break compatibility. I suspect that our oldest
> > and
> > > > >>> dearest friends are using the ProcessorAPI in some form or
> another,
> > > > >>> and all their source code would break. It sucks to have to
> create a
> > > > >>> whole new interface to get around this, but it feels like the
> right
> > > > >>> thing to do. Would be nice to get even more feedback on this
> point,
> > > > >>> though.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regarding the types of stores, as I said in my response to
> Sophie,
> > > > >>> it's not an issue.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regarding the change to StreamsBuilder, it doesn't pin the types
> in
> > > > >>> any way, since all the types are bounded by Object only, and
> there
> > are
> > > > >>> no extra constraints between arguments (each type is used only
> > once in
> > > > >>> one argument). But maybe I missed the point you were asking
> about.
> > > > >>> Since the type takes generic paramters, we should allow users to
> > pass
> > > > >>> in parameterized arguments. Otherwise, they would _have to_ give
> > us a
> > > > >>> raw type, and they would be forced to get a "rawtyes" warning
> from
> > the
> > > > >>> compiler. So, it's our obligation in any API that accepts a
> > > > >>> parameterized-type parameter to allow people to actually pass a
> > > > >>> parameterized type, even if we don't actually use the parameters.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The naming question is a complex one, as I took pains to detail
> > > > >>> previously. Please don't just pick out one minor point, call it
> > weak,
> > > > >>> and then claim that it invalidates the whole decision. I don't
> > think
> > > > >>> there's a clear best choice, so I'm more than happy for someone
> to
> > > > >>> advocate for renaming the class instead of the package. Can you
> > > > >>> provide some reasons why you think that would be better?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regarding the deprecated methods, you're absolutely right. I'll
> > > update the KIP.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks again for all the feedback!
> > > > >>> -John
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:34 PM Matthias J. Sax <
> > matth...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Just want to second what Sophie said about the stores. The type
> > of a
> > > > >>>> used stores is completely independent of input/output types.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> This related to change `addGlobalStore()` method. Why do you
> want
> > to
> > > pin
> > > > >>>> the types? In fact, people request the ability to filter() and
> > maybe
> > > > >>>> even map() the data before they are put into the global store.
> > > Limiting
> > > > >>>> the types seems to be a step backward here?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Also, the pack name is questionable.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> This wouldn't be the first project to do something like this...
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Not a strong argument. I would actually propose to not a a new
> > > package,
> > > > >>>> but just a new class `TypedProcessor`.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> For `ProcessorContext#forward` methods -- some of those methods
> > are
> > > > >>>> already deprecated. While the will still be affected, it would
> be
> > > worth
> > > > >>>> to mark them as deprecated in the wiki page, too.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> @Guozhang: I dont' think we should break source compatibility
> in a
> > > minor
> > > > >>>> release.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> -Matthias
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On 6/20/19 1:43 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > >>>>> Hi John,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks for KIP! I've a few comments below:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 1. So far the "Motivation" section is very general, and the
> only
> > > concrete
> > > > >>>>> example that I have in mind is `TransformValues#punctuate`. Do
> we
> > > have any
> > > > >>>>> other concrete issues that drive this KIP? If not then I feel
> > > better to
> > > > >>>>> narrow the scope of this KIP to:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 1.a) modifying ProcessorContext only with the output types on
> > > forward.
> > > > >>>>> 1.b) modifying Transformer signature to have generics of
> > > ProcessorContext,
> > > > >>>>> and then lift the restricting of not using punctuate: if user
> did
> > > not
> > > > >>>>> follow the enforced typing and just code without generics, they
> > > will get
> > > > >>>>> warning at compile time and get run-time error if they forward
> > > wrong-typed
> > > > >>>>> records, which I think would be acceptable.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I feel this would be a good solution for this specific issue;
> > > again, feel
> > > > >>>>> free to update the wiki page with other known issues that
> cannot
> > be
> > > > >>>>> resolved.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> 2. If, we want to go with the current scope then my next
> question
> > > would be,
> > > > >>>>> how much breakage we would introducing if we just modify the
> > > Processor
> > > > >>>>> signature directly? My feeling is that DSL users would be most
> > > likely not
> > > > >>>>> affected and PAPI users only need to modify a few lines on
> class
> > > > >>>>> declaration. I feel it worth doing some research on this part
> and
> > > then
> > > > >>>>> decide if we really want to bite the bullet of duplicated
> > Processor
> > > /
> > > > >>>>> ProcessorSupplier classes for maintaining compatibility.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Guozhang
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:21 PM John Roesler <
> j...@confluent.io
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> In response to the feedback so far, I changed the package name
> > from
> > > > >>>>>> `processor2` to `processor.generic`.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>> -John
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:49 PM John Roesler <
> j...@confluent.io
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback, Sophie!
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I actually felt a little uneasy when I wrote that remark,
> > because
> > > it's
> > > > >>>>>>> not restricted at all in the API, it's just available to you
> if
> > > you
> > > > >>>>>>> choose to give your stores and context the same parameters.
> > So, I
> > > > >>>>>>> think your use case is valid, and also perfectly permissable
> > > under the
> > > > >>>>>>> current KIP. Sorry for sowing confusion on my own discussion
> > > thread!
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I'm not crazy about the package name, either. I went with it
> > only
> > > > >>>>>>> because there's seemingly nothing special about the new
> package
> > > except
> > > > >>>>>>> that it can't have the same name as the old one. Otherwise,
> the
> > > > >>>>>>> existing "processor" and "Processor" names for the package
> and
> > > class
> > > > >>>>>>> are perfectly satisfying. Rather than pile on additional
> > > semantics, it
> > > > >>>>>>> seemed cleaner to just add a number to the package name.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> This wouldn't be the first project to do something like
> this...
> > > Apache
> > > > >>>>>>> Commons, for example, has added a "2" to the end of some of
> > their
> > > > >>>>>>> packages for exactly the same reason.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I'm open to any suggestions. For example, we could do
> something
> > > like
> > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.kafka.streams.typedprocessor.Processor or
> > > > >>>>>>> org.apache.kafka.streams.processor.typed.Processor , which
> > would
> > > have
> > > > >>>>>>> just about the same effect. One microscopic thought is that,
> if
> > > > >>>>>>> there's another interface in the "processor" package that we
> > wish
> > > to
> > > > >>>>>>> do the same thing to, would _could_ pile it in to
> "processor2",
> > > but we
> > > > >>>>>>> couldn't do the same if we use a package that has "typed" in
> > the
> > > name,
> > > > >>>>>>> unless that change is _also_ related to types in some way.
> But
> > > this
> > > > >>>>>>> seems like a very minor concern.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> What's your preference?
> > > > >>>>>>> -John
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 3:56 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <
> > > sop...@confluent.io>
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Hey John, thanks for writing this up! I like the proposal
> but
> > > there's
> > > > >>>>>> one
> > > > >>>>>>>> point that I think may be too restrictive:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> "A processor that happens to use a typed store is actually
> > > emitting the
> > > > >>>>>>>> same types that it is storing."
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I can imagine someone could want to leverage this new type
> > safety
> > > > >>>>>> without
> > > > >>>>>>>> also limiting how they can interact with/use their store. As
> > an
> > > > >>>>>> (admittedly
> > > > >>>>>>>> contrived) example, say you have an input stream of
> purchases
> > of
> > > a
> > > > >>>>>> certain
> > > > >>>>>>>> type (entertainment, food, etc), and on seeing a new record
> > you
> > > want to
> > > > >>>>>>>> output how many types of purchase a shopper has made more
> > than 5
> > > > >>>>>> purchases
> > > > >>>>>>>> of in the last month. Your state store will probably be
> > holding
> > > some
> > > > >>>>>> more
> > > > >>>>>>>> complicated PurchaseHistory object (keyed by user), but your
> > > output is
> > > > >>>>>> just
> > > > >>>>>>>> a <User, Long>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I'm also not crazy about "processor2" as the package name
> ...
> > > not sure
> > > > >>>>>> what
> > > > >>>>>>>> a better one would be though (something with "typed"?)
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:47 PM John Roesler <
> > j...@confluent.io>
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose KIP-478 (
> > > > >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/2SkLBw
> > > > >>>>>>>>> ).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> This proposal would add output type bounds to the Processor
> > > interface
> > > > >>>>>>>>> in Kafka Streams, which enables static checking of a number
> > of
> > > useful
> > > > >>>>>>>>> properties:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> * A processor B that consumes the output of processor A is
> > > actually
> > > > >>>>>>>>> expecting the same types that processor A produces.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> * A processor that happens to use a typed store is actually
> > > emitting
> > > > >>>>>>>>> the same types that it is storing.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> * A processor is simply forwarding the expected types in
> all
> > > code
> > > > >>>>>> paths.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> * Processors added via the Streams DSL, which are not
> > permitted
> > > to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> forward results at all are statically prevented from doing
> so
> > > by the
> > > > >>>>>>>>> compiler
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Internally, we can use the above properties to achieve a
> much
> > > higher
> > > > >>>>>>>>> level of confidence in the Streams DSL implementation's
> > > correctness.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Actually, while doing the POC, I found a few bugs and
> > mistakes,
> > > which
> > > > >>>>>>>>> become structurally impossible with KIP-478.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Additionally, the stronger types dramatically improve the
> > > > >>>>>>>>> self-documentation of our Streams internal implementations,
> > > which
> > > > >>>>>>>>> makes it much easier for new contributors to ramp up with
> > > confidence.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks so much for your consideration!
> > > > >>>>>>>>> -John
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -- Guozhang
> >
>
>
> --
> -- Guozhang
>
