LGTM
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 08:26 Luke Chen wrote:
> Thanks Mickael and Cheng!
> This KIP LGTM!
>
> Thanks.
> Luke
>
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 7:27 PM Mickael Maison
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Tom and Chris for your feedback!
> >
> > I agree one configuration is enough. I've renamed it to
> > 'replac
Thanks Mickael and Cheng!
This KIP LGTM!
Thanks.
Luke
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 7:27 PM Mickael Maison
wrote:
> Thanks Tom and Chris for your feedback!
>
> I agree one configuration is enough. I've renamed it to
> 'replace.null.with.default'.
> Since you both seemed happy with the KIP overall, I'
Thanks Tom and Chris for your feedback!
I agree one configuration is enough. I've renamed it to
'replace.null.with.default'.
Since you both seemed happy with the KIP overall, I'll start a vote later today.
Thanks,
Mickael
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 7:08 PM Chris Egerton wrote:
>
> Hi Mickael,
>
>
Hi Mickael,
Tom got this part perfect so I'm just going to copy+paste: Thanks to Cheng
for the KIP and to you for picking it up.
I'm wondering why we need separate properties for serialization vs.
deserialization? If the converter is being used by the Kafka Connect
runtime, a given instance of it
Hi Mickael,
Thanks to Cheng for the KIP and to you for picking it up.
My only comment (feel free to ignore) is about the names of the configs.
Personally I don't think I'd correctly guess what
"serialize.use.optional.null" meant. Something like
"serialize.map.null.to.default" is much clearer to m
Hi,
This KIP has been staled for a long time. Since it would be a useful
feature, I pinged Cheng about a month ago asking if he was planning to
work on it again. I've not received a reply, so I've allowed myself to
update the KIP (hopefully preserving the initial requirements) and
would like to re
> > > > > Would you mind explicitly specifying in the KIP that the new
> > > > > > property will
> > > > > > be added for the JSON converter only, and that it will affect both
> > > > > > serialization and deser
ou
> > > >
> > > > On 2020/07/29 02:49:07, "379377...@qq.com" <379377...@qq.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Chris,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your good suggestion, the KIP document and draft PR has
> > > >
, please review again.
> > > >
> > > > And I found due to my misoperation, the mail thread has been broken, no
> > > > idea how to fix it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Cheng Pan
t; > >
> > > And I found due to my misoperation, the mail thread has been broken, no
> > > idea how to fix it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Cheng Pan
> > >
> > > From: Christopher Egerton
> > >
Cheng Pan
> >
> > From: Christopher Egerton
> > Date: 2020-05-04 10:53
> > To: dev
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-581: Value of optional null field which has
> > default value
> > Hi Cheng,
> >
> > I think refactoring that method should be fi
ou said, I only implement the
> > serialization now. This is because the original serde implement is not
> > symmetrical, the convertToConnect is a static method and can’t access the
> > field in JsonConverter
> > instance, maybe I should do some refactoring to implement the
>
: Re: [Discuss] KIP-581: Value of optional null field which has default
value
Hi Cheng,
I think refactoring that method should be fine (if maybe a little painful);
the method itself is private and all places that it's invoked directly are
either package-private or non-static, so it shouldn
;
> Thanks,
> Cheng Pan
> Original Message
> Sender: Christopher Egerton
> Recipient: dev
> Date: Wednesday, Apr 15, 2020 02:28
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-581: Value of optional null field which has
> default value
>
>
> Hi Cheng, Thanks for the KIP! I really appreciate
Sender: Christopher Egerton
Recipient: dev
Date: Wednesday, Apr 15, 2020 02:28
Subject: Re: [Discuss] KIP-581: Value of optional null field which has default
value
Hi Cheng, Thanks for the KIP! I really appreciate the care that was taken to
ensure backwards compatibility for existing users, and the
Hi Cheng,
Thanks for the KIP! I really appreciate the care that was taken to ensure
backwards compatibility for existing users, and the minimal changes to
public interface that are suggested to address this.
I have two quick requests for clarification:
1) Where is the proposed "accept.optional.n
16 matches
Mail list logo
