Hi Chris,
Thanks for your comment. I might have misunderstood the filter SMT. Makes
sense. Dropping this KIP for now. I will look at improving the
existing SMTs separately.
*---*
*Thanks and Regards,*
*Kumud Kumar Srivatsava Tirupati*
On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 at 03:57, Chris Egerton wrote:
> Hi Kumu
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the explanation. This clears my thoughts.
I can now agree that the concerns are totally different for SMTs and
predicates.
I also do agree with you that this might encourage SMTs to be poorly
designed.
Do you see this worth considering just for the filter use case?
['errors.to
Hi Kumud,
Responses inline.
> But, I still believe this logic of predicate checking shouldn't be made a
part of each individual SMT. After all, that is what the predicates are for
right?
I don't quite agree. I think the benefit of predicates is that they can
allow you to selectively apply a tran
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your comments.
I am totally aligned with your comment on nested field names which include
dots. I will incorporate the same based on how the KIP-821 discussion goes
(maybe this parser could be a utility that can be reused in other areas as
well).
But, I still believe this log
Hi Kumud,
Thanks for the KIP. I'm a little bit skeptical about the necessity for this
predicate but I think we may be able to satisfy your requirements with a
slightly different approach. The motivation section deals largely with
skipping the invocation of SMTs that expect a certain field to be pr
Hi Kumud,
Thanks for that. I don't have any other comments at this point on the KIP.
LGTM overall.
Thanks!
Sagar.
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 5:14 PM Sagar wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP Kumud.
>
> Can you please add a couple of examples on how this would behave with
> different combinations. I think
Hi Sagar,
Added the examples to the KIP wiki as suggested.
*---*
*Thanks and Regards,*
*Kumud Kumar Srivatsava Tirupati*
On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 17:14, Sagar wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP Kumud.
>
> Can you please add a couple of examples on how this would behave with
> different combinations. I
Thanks for the KIP Kumud.
Can you please add a couple of examples on how this would behave with
different combinations. I think that way it would be easier to understand.
Thanks!
Sagar.
On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 4:59 PM Kumud Kumar Srivatsava Tirupati <
kumudkumartirup...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi a
Hi all,
I have written a KIP for having a new HasField predicate for kafka connect
transforms and would like to start a discussion. Please share your thoughts
on the same.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-845%3A+%27HasField%27+predicate+for+kafka+connect
*---*
*Thanks and Reg
