[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-12213?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17266335#comment-17266335
]
Matthias J. Sax commented on KAFKA-12213:
-----------------------------------------
[~MonCalamari] – thanks for creating this ticket, however, this is a public API
change and needs to be backed by a KIP (cf
[https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals])
Btw: there is already KIP-149
([https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-149%3A+Enabling+key+access+in+ValueTransformer%2C+ValueMapper%2C+and+ValueJoiner|https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-149%3A+Enabling+key+access+in+ValueTransformer%2C+ValueMapper%2C+and+ValueJoiner)])
and KIP-159
([https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-159%3A+Introducing+Rich+functions+to+Streams])
that both overlaps with your request and there are a few related tickets:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4125, _KAFKA-4218, KAFKA-4726,
KAFKA-3745, KAFKA-7842, KAFKA-7843_
I would need to catchup on the status of both KIP – there was not work on if
for a long time... So we would need to re-evaluate the status of KIP-149 and
KIP-159 first and than decide if the update one of the KIP, of your PR would
actually contributes to the KIP-149 was was already approved or if we want to
move forward with KIP-159 that was not approved yet.
> Kafka Streams aggregation Initializer to accept record key
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-12213
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-12213
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: streams
> Reporter: Piotr Fras
> Assignee: Piotr Fras
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: needs-kip
>
> Sometimes Kafka record key contains useful information for creating a zero
> object in aggregation Initializer. This feature is to add kafka record key to
> Initializer.
> There were two approaches I considered to implement this feature, one
> respecting backwards compatibility for internal and external APIs and the
> other one which is not. I chose the latter one as it was more strait-forward.
> We may want to validate this approach tho.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
