[DISCUSS] KIP-646: Serializer API should support ByteBuffer

Hello everyone, I want to start a discussion thread on KIP-646 , which proposes enabling the Serializer API to support ByteBuffer. Please take a look and let me know what you think. I would appreciate any suggestions and feedback. Best regards, TengY

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-646 Serializer API should support ByteBuffer

On 2020/07/23 03:23:58, Chia-Ping Tsai wrote: > Thanks for quick feedback! Ismael > > > Are there options with lower impact that still help us achieve the goal for > > those who need it? > > For example, it could be an opt-in thing instead of forcing the world to > > change. > > It seems

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-646 Serializer API should support ByteBuffer

Thanks for quick feedback! Ismael > Are there options with lower impact that still help us achieve the goal for > those who need it? > For example, it could be an opt-in thing instead of forcing the world to > change. It seems to me there are two alternatives. 1. Introduce an new extended ser

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-646 Serializer API should support ByteBuffer

Hi Chia-Ping, Thanks for the KIP. It seems like the path chosen here would cause a massive impact to user code. Are there options with lower impact that still help us achieve the goal for those who need it? For example, it could be an opt-in thing instead of forcing the world to change. Ismael O

[DISCUSS] KIP-646 Serializer API should support ByteBuffer

hi folks, I would like to discuss KIP-646. The KIP plans to use ByteBuffer to be the return type of Serializer#serialize. It opens the door to manage the memory more effectively and flexible. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/RiR4CQ The change involved by this KIP is huge so it would be be