I updated the KIP to not include forwarding via child-index with the new
`To` class.
I also updated the PR accordingly.
It seems there are not further comments atm. I am going to start a VOTE
thread. Of course, you can always follow up on this thread.
-Matthias
On 2/7/18 2:10 PM, Guozhang Wang
I intend to suggest we piggyback this change, just for connivence.
Guozhang
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 7:25 PM, Matthias J. Sax
wrote:
> I am open to remove the index API and also open to piggyback this change
> on this KIP... Not sure if this was the intention of your comment? Or
> should be have
I am open to remove the index API and also open to piggyback this change
on this KIP... Not sure if this was the intention of your comment? Or
should be have a separate KIP for this?
Not sure, what other think about removing the index API?
-Matthias
On 2/5/18 4:13 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Thi
This is not included in this KIP, but I'm wondering if we should still
support forwarding to a child with index.
Because 1) if users are using DSL, they would probably never use this API
since the ordering of the child is hard to reason from a DSL anyways.
2) if users are using PAPI
Thanks.
I updated the KIP accordingly and started work on the PR to see if this
`To` interface work nicely.
-Matthias
On 2/1/18 4:00 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
> Yeah.
> Cleaner in this formation.
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Bill Bejeck wrote:
>
>> `To` works for me.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bill
>>
>
Yeah.
Cleaner in this formation.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Bill Bejeck wrote:
> `To` works for me.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Matthias J. Sax
> wrote:
>
> > @Paolo:
> >
> > The timestamp will be used to set the message/record metadata timestamp
> > on `Producer
`To` works for me.
Thanks,
Bill
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Matthias J. Sax
wrote:
> @Paolo:
>
> The timestamp will be used to set the message/record metadata timestamp
> on `Producer.send(new ProducerRecord(...,timestamp,...))`.
>
> @Bill,Ted:
>
> Might be a good idea. I was thinking about
@Paolo:
The timestamp will be used to set the message/record metadata timestamp
on `Producer.send(new ProducerRecord(...,timestamp,...))`.
@Bill,Ted:
Might be a good idea. I was thinking about the name, and came up with `To`:
> context.forward(key, value, To.child("processorX").withTimestamp(5)
I like Bill's idea (pending a better name for the Forwarded).
Cheers
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Bill Bejeck wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> Thanks for the KIP!
>
> Could we consider taking an approach similar to what was done in KIP-182
> with regards to overloading?
>
> Meaning we could add a "
Hi Matthias,
Thanks for the KIP!
Could we consider taking an approach similar to what was done in KIP-182
with regards to overloading?
Meaning we could add a "Forwarded" object (horrible name I know) with
methods withTimestamp, withChildName, and withChildIndex. To handle the
case when both a ch
Hi Matthias,
just a question : what will be the timestamp "type" in the new message on the
wire ?
Thanks,
Paolo.
From: Matthias J. Sax
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:06 AM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] KIP-251: Allow timestamp manipulation in
11 matches
Mail list logo
