Thanks to you all, Closing this vote with 8 +1s (4 bindings and 4 non-bindings) and no -1s. We'll adjust the naming during the implementation.
Thanks, Christophe Le mar. 23 août 2022 à 07:04, Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> a écrit : > +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 > > > >
