Re: [VOTE] KIP-66: Single Message Transforms for Kafka Connect

2017-01-09 Thread Shikhar Bhushan
Thanks all. The vote passed with +5 (binding). On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM Shikhar Bhushan wrote: That makes sense to me, I'll fold that into the PR and update the KIP if it gets committed in that form. On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:44 AM Jason Gustafson wrote: +1 One minor comment: would it m

Re: [VOTE] KIP-66: Single Message Transforms for Kafka Connect

2017-01-06 Thread Shikhar Bhushan
That makes sense to me, I'll fold that into the PR and update the KIP if it gets committed in that form. On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:44 AM Jason Gustafson wrote: > +1 One minor comment: would it make sense to let the `Transformation` > interface extend `o.a.k.c.Configurable` and remove the `init` m

Re: [VOTE] KIP-66: Single Message Transforms for Kafka Connect

2017-01-06 Thread Jason Gustafson
+1 One minor comment: would it make sense to let the `Transformation` interface extend `o.a.k.c.Configurable` and remove the `init` method? On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:36 PM Shikhar Bhushan > wrote: > > > I do plan on introduc

Re: [VOTE] KIP-66: Single Message Transforms for Kafka Connect

2017-01-05 Thread Neha Narkhede
+1 (binding) On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:36 PM Shikhar Bhushan wrote: > I do plan on introducing a new `connect:transforms` module (which > `connect:runtime` will depend on), so they will live in a separate module > in the source tree and output. > > ( https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/2299 ) >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-66: Single Message Transforms for Kafka Connect

2017-01-04 Thread Shikhar Bhushan
I do plan on introducing a new `connect:transforms` module (which `connect:runtime` will depend on), so they will live in a separate module in the source tree and output. ( https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/2299 ) On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:28 PM Ewen Cheslack-Postava wrote: > +1 > > Gwen, re:

Re: [VOTE] KIP-66: Single Message Transforms for Kafka Connect

2017-01-04 Thread Gwen Shapira
The concern is maintaining a potentially unbounded list of add-ons as part of Kafka. I think the pros/cons were well discussed, I am happy we added a provision specifically excluding transformations that depend on specific data sources, and I'd much rather get SMT than continuing to debate how man

Re: [VOTE] KIP-66: Single Message Transforms for Kafka Connect

2017-01-04 Thread Ewen Cheslack-Postava
+1 Gwen, re: bundling transformations, would it help at all to isolate them to a separate jar or is the concern purely about maintaining them as part of Kafka? -Ewen On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Sriram Subramanian wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > I

Re: [VOTE] KIP-66: Single Message Transforms for Kafka Connect

2017-01-04 Thread Sriram Subramanian
+1 On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > I would have preferred not to bundle transformations, but since SMT > capability is a much needed feature, I'll take it in its current form. > > +1 > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Shikhar Bhushan > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'd like

Re: [VOTE] KIP-66: Single Message Transforms for Kafka Connect

2017-01-04 Thread Gwen Shapira
I would have preferred not to bundle transformations, but since SMT capability is a much needed feature, I'll take it in its current form. +1 On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Shikhar Bhushan wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to start voting on KIP-66: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KA

[VOTE] KIP-66: Single Message Transforms for Kafka Connect

2017-01-04 Thread Shikhar Bhushan
Hi all, I'd like to start voting on KIP-66: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-66%3A+Single+Message+Transforms+for+Kafka+Connect Best, Shikhar