Sounds good. Thanks.
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> Yeah, you are right, it is best not to make converters actively break the
> data structures :)
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava
> wrote:
>
> > Guozhang,
> >
> > I'm fine w/ adjusting if people wa
Yeah, you are right, it is best not to make converters actively break the
data structures :)
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava
wrote:
> Guozhang,
>
> I'm fine w/ adjusting if people want to, but it ends up being more code
> since we also need to convert SerializationException
Guozhang,
I'm fine w/ adjusting if people want to, but it ends up being more code
since we also need to convert SerializationExceptions to DataExceptions and
the only thing the toConnectData method even does is specific to Connect
(adding the SchemaAndValue).
Gwen -- isn't that an SMT? ExtractFie
Hi Ewen,
Thanks for the KIP, I think it will be useful :)
I'm just wondering if we can add support not just for bytes schema,
but also for a struct that contains bytes? I'm thinking of the
scenario of using a connector to grab BLOBs out of a DB - I think you
end up with this structure if you use
Generally I'd prefer not duplicating functional logic as sometimes you may
miss to sync one of them when you change the other. I understand for this
specific case such scenario may never happen as the logic is quite simple
and static, but still sounds a good coding practice to me?
Guozhang
On T
Guozhang,
Did you look at the PR? I'm fine with doing that if we really think it's
better, but since this is a config-less passthrough, it's actually just
adding overhead to do that...
-Ewen
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Thanks Ewen,
>
> "use the corresponding serial
Thanks Ewen,
"use the corresponding serializer internally and just add in the extra
conversion
steps for the data API" sounds good to me.
Guozhang
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava
wrote:
> It's a different interface that's being implemented. The functionality is
> the sa
It's a different interface that's being implemented. The functionality is
the same (since it's just a simple pass through), but we intentionally
named Converters differently than Serializers since they do more work than
Serializers (besides the normal serialization they also need to convert
between
I'm wondering why we can't just use ByteArarySerde in o.a.k.common?
Guozhang
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've added a pretty trivial KIP for adding a pass-through Converter for
> Kafka Connect, similar to ByteArraySerializer/Deserializer.
>
> http
Hi all,
I've added a pretty trivial KIP for adding a pass-through Converter for
Kafka Connect, similar to ByteArraySerializer/Deserializer.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-128%3A+Add+ByteArrayConverter+for+Kafka+Connect
This wasn't added with the framework originally becaus
10 matches
Mail list logo
