+1 (binding) I have some thoughts on naming, too.
My preference is to call it a “mapper function”, though I think “decorator function” is a good name too. My concern with the preprocessing (and the correlated future postprocessing) name is that it's not clear to me what the "processing" step is. Converting a message to another message seems like the processing step for the source/sink. Either way, these are minor details. The feature looks good to me. Thanks, Michael On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 12:55 PM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > Good proposal. My only comment is about the naming. Instead of calling it a > "preprocessing function" or "extra function", I'd propose calling it > "decorator function". > > -Lari > > On 2022/07/28 10:39:35 Christophe Bornet wrote: > > Hi, Pulsar community, > > > > I'd like to start a vote on PIP-193 : Sink preprocessing Function > > > > You can find the proposal at https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16739 > > and > > the discussion thread at > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/qn59jwn47w9ngxpkvq3kswbl1y882jth. > > > > The vote will stay open for at least 48 hours. > > > > Best regards. > > > > Christophe Bornet > >
