Re: [VOTE] KIP-198: Remove ZK dependency from Streams Reset Tool

+1 On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 at 03:46, Sriram Subramanian wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > +1, thanks. > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Bill Bejeck wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Bill > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Matthias J

Re: [VOTE] KIP-182 - Reduce Streams DSL overloads and allow easier use of custom storage engines

Hi All, A minor update to the KIP, i needed to add KTable.to(Produced) for consistency. KTable.through will be deprecated in favour of using KTable.toStream().through() Thanks, Damian On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 at 08:52 Damian Guy wrote: > Thanks all. The vote is now closed and the KIP has b

Re: [VOTE] 0.11.0.1 RC0

od. +1 (non-binding) from us. > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Hello Kafka users, developers and client-developers, > > > > This is the first candidate for release of Apache Kafka 0.11.0.1. > > > > This is a bug fix release and it

[RESULTS] [VOTE] Release Kafka version 0.11.0.1

This vote passes with 6 +1 votes (3 bindings) and no 0 or -1 votes. +1 votes PMC Members: * Jun Rao * Gouzhang Wang * Ismael Juma Community: * Manikumar Reddy * Thomas Crawford * Magnus Edenhill 0 votes * No votes -1 votes * No votes Vote threads (two as some votes were on user list only):ht

Re: [VOTE] KIP-182 - Reduce Streams DSL overloads and allow easier use of custom storage engines

e agree that it is confusing to users? > > > Guozhang > > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > A minor update to the KIP, i needed to add KTable.to(Produced) for > > consistency. KTable.through will be deprecated in fa

[ANNOUCE] Apache Kafka 0.11.0.1 Released

/www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi?path=/kafka/0.11.0.1/ kafka_2.12-0.11.0.1.tgz <https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi?path=/kafka/0.11.0.0/kafka_2.12-0.11.0.0.tgz> >* A big thank you for the following 33 contributors to this release! Apurva Mehta, Bill Bejeck, Colin P. Mccabe, Damian Guy, Derrick Or,

Re: [DISCUSS]: KIP-159: Introducing Rich functions to Streams

one and the DSL refactoring will help later on to > >> reduce the number of overloads. > >> > >> -Matthias > >> > >> On 7/7/17 5:28 AM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote: > >> > I am following the related thread in the mailing list and looking > >>

Re: [ANNOUCE] Apache Kafka 0.11.0.1 Released

; Do you know when artifacts would be visible for downstream projects ? > > Thanks > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > The Apache Kafka community is pleased to announce the release for Apache > > Kafka 0.11.0.1. This is a bug fix release that fixe

Re: [VOTE] KIP-182 - Reduce Streams DSL overloads and allow easier use of custom storage engines

ink the extra step "toStream" > is actually better to remind the caller that it is sending its changelog > stream to topic, plus it is not that much characters. > > > Guozhang > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Hi Guozhang,

Re: [Discuss] KIP-202 Move merge() from StreamsBuilder to KStream

Hi Richard, Thanks for the KIP. Looks good, just one thing: we don't need to deprecate StreamBuilder#merge as it has been added during this release cycle. It can just be removed. Thanks, Damian On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 at 23:22 Richard Yu wrote: > The discussion should not stay idle. Since this iss

Re: [VOTE] KIP-182 - Reduce Streams DSL overloads and allow easier use of custom storage engines

nal Materialized> materialized) Thanks, Damian On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 at 12:37 Damian Guy wrote: > Sounds good to me. > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 at 19:55 Guozhang Wang wrote: > >> I'd suggest we remove both to and through together in KIP-182, since for >> operator "

Re: [VOTE] KIP-202

+1 On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 at 14:15 Bill Bejeck wrote: > +1 > > -Bill > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > Thanks for the KIP, +1. > > > > If we can make it in 1.0.0, I think we can just remove the merge() in > > StreamsBuilder as it will only be introduced in 1.0.0; if w

Re: [DISCUSS] Java 8 as a minimum requirement

+1 On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 at 09:59 Marcus Gründler wrote: > Hi Ismael, > > thanks for the pointer to the latest WebSphere documentation - I wasn’t > aware > of that release. > > We currently have customers that run our software frontend on an older > WebSphere version that runs on Java 7 and push d

[DISCUSS] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Stream

Hi, We have created KIP 67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams` https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-67%3A+Queryable+state+for+Kafka+Streams Please take a look. Feedback is appreciated. Thank you

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Stream

k. Many thanks, Damian On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 at 09:34 Damian Guy wrote: > Hi, > > We have created KIP 67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams` > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-67%3A+Queryable+state+for+Kafka+Streams > > Please take a look. Feedback is appreciated. > > Thank you >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Stream

x27;d be good to change those. > > -Jay > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 4:09 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We've made some modifications to the KIP. The "Discovery" API has been > > changed > > > > > ht

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Stream

ent access with the > queryable state support, this may incur slight overhead on the streams > applications while query is on-going, and we will quantize the overhead in > our benchmarks. > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Thanks Jay - i've updated

[VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

Hi all, I'd like to initiate the voting process for KIP-67 KAFKA-3909 is the top level JIRA for this effort. Initial PRs for Step 1 of the process ar

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

zhang Wang wrote: > > > ＋1 > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Damian Guy > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I'd like to initiate the voting process for KIP-67 > > > < > > > > > > https://cwiki.apa

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

; > > > >> On 7 Jul 2016, at 18:31, Sriram Subramanian wrote: > > >> > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Henry Cai > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1 > > >>>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

at the same time > > > > > > That's right. But the current live instance will be able to tell other > > > instances, via its endpoint setting, whether it wants to be contacted > at > > v1 > > > or at v2. The other instances can't guess that. Thin

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

, final Serializer keySerializer) Thanks, Damian On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 at 11:14 Damian Guy wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with point 1. application.server is a better name for the config > (we'll change this). However, on point 2 I thin

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

ue, Jul 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I agree with point 1. application.server is a better name for the config > > (we'll change this). However, on point 2 I think we should stick mostly > > with what we already have. I've tried

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

ode. > > > > I tend to prefer simplicity to optimize for the general case, but curious > > to get people's thoughts on this as well. > > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > > IMO, that makes the most sense. > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

but > curious > > > to get people's thoughts on this as well. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Jim Jagielski > wrote: > > > > > > > IMO, that makes the most sense. > > > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 201

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

Yes, you get compile time errors On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 at 16:22 Damian Guy wrote: > You wont get a runtime error as you wouldn't find a store of that type. > The API would return null > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 at 16:22 Jay Kreps wrote: > >> But if "my-store"

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

s cast would be? Basically the > question I'm asking is whether this added complexity is actually moving > runtime errors to compile time errors. > > -Jay > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > You create your custom Store, i.e,: > > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

nd more pleasant is worth it, in > my opinion. > > Ismael > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Yes, you get compile time errors > > > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 at 16:22 Damian Guy wrote: > > > > > You wont get a runtime e

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

s, > from Streams developers. > > Other than that, all LGTM. > > Guozhang > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I've updated the KIP with changes as discussed in this Thread. > > > > Thanks,

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

ge code in streams? > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jay Kreps wrote: > > > > > Cool, I'm +1 after the updates. > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Damian Guy > > wrote: > > > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

Hi, The vote is now complete and KIP-67 has been accepted and adopted. Thanks everyone for the input etc. Regards, Damian On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 at 06:53 Damian Guy wrote: > Hi, > Jay's interpretation is correct. > Thanks, > Damian > > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 at 16:10,

[DISCUSS] KIP-71 Enable log compaction and deletion to co-exist

Hi, We have created KIP 71: Enable log compaction and deletion to co-exist` https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-71%3A+Enable+log+compaction+and+deletion+to+co-exist Please take a look. Feedback is appreciated. Thank you

[DISCUSS] KIP-94: Session Windows

Hi all, I would like to start the discussion on KIP-94: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-94+Session+Windows Thanks, Damian

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-94: Session Windows

ode that are not part of the KIP (not sure how > important this is) > > > -Matthias > > > > On 11/24/16 7:59 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to start the discussion on KIP-94: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-94+Session+Windows > > > > Thanks, > > Damian > > > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-93: Improve invalid timestamp handling in Kafka Streams

+1 On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 at 05:58 Ewen Cheslack-Postava wrote: > +1 (binding). > > Also, see my notes in discussion thread around future compatibility > discussions for breaking plugin interface changes like this. > > -Ewen > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > +1. > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-95: Incremental Batch Processing for Kafka Streams

I think the KIP looks good. I also think we need the metadata topic in-order to provide sane guarantees on what data will be processed. As Matthias has outlined in the KIP we need to know when to stop consuming from intermediate topics, i.e, topics that are part of the same application but are use

Re: Suppressing redundant KTable forwards

Hi Mathieu, You are correct in that the de-duping only occurs within the commit interval. I can understand and appreciate the use-case you have. So I think the right approach for this is to create a KIP with your suggested changes and put it to the community. Are you happy to do that? Thanks, Da

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-94: Session Windows

ion operator implementations where both an aggregator > V, T -> T and a merger T, T -> T could be provided by users. > > > Guozhang > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Thanks Matthias. > > > > 1) Yes good suggestion will update

[DISCUSS] KIP-99: Add Global Tables to Kafka Streams

Hi all, I would like to start the discussion on KIP-99: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=67633649 Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks, Damian

[VOTE] KIP-94: Session Windows

Hi all, I'd like to start the vote for KIP-94: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-94+Session+Windows There is a PR for it here: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/2166 Thanks, Damian

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-99: Add Global Tables to Kafka Streams

e application fails before bootstrapping finishes and new > data gets written at the same time? Do we need to guard against this > (seems to be a very rare corner case, so maybe not required)? > > > -Matthias > > > On 12/6/16 2:09 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > Hi all

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-99: Add Global Tables to Kafka Streams

(rightTable) to > rightTable.join(leftTable), that join would work, too. Perhaps I am > missing something though. :-) > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Hi Matthias, > > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > There i

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-99: Add Global Tables to Kafka Streams

Streams must know two mappers, t1->t2 plus t2->t1 -- otherwise the > outer join won't work. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Sure. Say we have 2 input topics t1 & t2 below: > > t1

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-99: Add Global Tables to Kafka Streams

he key type returned by both KeyValueMappers (in the current trunk > version, that type is named `R`) would need to be the same for this to > work. > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Michael, > > > > We can only support outerJoin if both tables a

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-100 - Relax Type constraints in Kafka Streams API

Hi Xavier, The KIP looks good - thanks! Damian On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 at 18:12 Xavier Léauté wrote: > I recently filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4481, which > Guozhang agreed was a bug. However fixing this will require some minor > changes to the existing Kafka Streams APIs. > >

Re: Improvements to Jenkins pull request builder

Cool - thanks Ismael! On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 at 18:22 Guozhang Wang wrote: > Thanks Ismael, this is sper helpful! > > > Guozhang > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Given the recent availability of the superior open-source pull request > > build

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-99: Add Global Tables to Kafka Streams

we still have the option to add > it in the future. > > > Best, > Michael > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Hi Michael, > > > > I don't see how that helps? > > > > Lets say we have ta

Re: [VOTE] KIP-94: Session Windows

2016 at 9:07 AM, Matthias J. Sax < > > matth...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/6/16 7:40 AM, Eno Thereska wrote: > > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-100 - Relax Type constraints in Kafka Streams API

+1 On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 at 08:07 Ewen Cheslack-Postava wrote: > +1 (binding) > > My only concern was around compatibility. It seems like the one case it is > incompatible would be, at worst, an extremely unusual edge case (and I > *think* can be restricted further to "not source compatible for an

[VOTE] KIP-99: Add Global Tables to Kafka Streams

Hi all, I'd like to start the vote for KIP-99: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=67633649 There is a PR for it here: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/2244 Thanks, Damian

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-99: Add Global Tables to Kafka Streams

group protocol? By doing this I think we > > can still avoid thread-synchronization while making the logic more clear > > (ideally the standby restoration do not really need to be in part of the > > stream thread's main loops). > > > > 5. Also for the global table&

Re: [VOTE] KIP-90 Remove zkClient dependency from Streams

+1 On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 at 21:16 Sriram Subramanian wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > +1. Thanks! > > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Hojjat Jafarpour > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Seems that there is no opposition to this KIP. This emai

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-99: Add Global Tables to Kafka Streams

nterface sooner than later. > > 4/6. OK. > > > Guozhang > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > Thanks for your input. Answers below, but i'm thinking we should remove > > joins from GlobalKTables for the t

Re: [VOTE] KIP-99: Add Global Tables to Kafka Streams

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Matthias J. Sax > > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On 12/12/16 3:45 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-99: > > &

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Thanks for the KIP Jeyhun! +1 On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 08:59 Jeyhun Karimov wrote: > Dear community, > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-123: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=68714788 > > > Cheers, > Jeyhun > -- > -Cheers > > Jeyhun >

Re: [DISCUSS] 0.10.3.0/0.11.0.0 release planning

+1 On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 04:32 Vahid S Hashemian wrote: > +1 on 0.11.0.0. > > Can we also include KIP-54 to the list? > The PR for this KIP is ready for review. > > Thanks. > --Vahid > > > > > > From: Ismael Juma > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > Date: 02/27/2017 07:47 PM > Subject:

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-129: Kafka Streams Exactly-Once Semantics

Hi Guozhang, Thanks for the KIP! This is an important feature for Kafka Streams and will help to unlock a bunch of use cases. I have some concerns/questions: 1. Producer per task: I'm worried about the overhead this is going to put on both the streams app and the Kafka Brokers. You can eas

Re: groupBy without auto-repartition topics for Kafka Streams

If you use stream.groupByKey() then there will be no repartitioning as long as there have been no key changing operations preceding it, i.e, map, selectKey, flatMap, transform. If you use stream.groupBy(...) then we see it as a key changing operation, hence we need to repartition the data. On Wed,

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP 130: Expose states of active tasks to KafkaStreams public API

Hi Florian, Thanks for the KIP. It seems there is some overlap here with what we already have in KafkaStreams.allMetadata(). This currently returns a Collection where each StreamsMetadata instance holds the state stores and partition assignment for every instance of the KafkaStreams application.

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-129: Kafka Streams Exactly-Once Semantics

f the > >> input. > >> - Connection and metadata request storms. When an instance with 1000 > >> tasks starts up it is going to try to create many thousands of > connections > >> and issue a thousand metadata requests all at once. > >>

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-129: Kafka Streams Exactly-Once Semantics

publishing to > > different topics. Since the producer batching happens at the > > topic/partition level, using a producer per task may not impact batching > > much. > > > > 2. When processing.guarantee is set to exactly_once, do we want to > enforce > > ac

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-132: Augment KStream.print to allow extra parameters in the printed string

Hi Marc, Thanks for the KIP. It mostly looks good to me. The only thing i'd change is using a null argument to use a default mapping. IMO it would be better if the existing print() method delegates to the new one supplying a KeyValueMapper that does the right thing. Thanks, Damian On Sat, 18 Mar

[DISCUSS] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

Hi All, I've prepared a KIP to add a configurable delay to the initial consumer group rebalance. Please have look here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-134%3A+Delay+initial+consumer+group+rebalance Thanks, Damian BTW, i apologize if this appears twice. Seems the first one

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

nse), so it would be good to get a bit more detail. > > Thanks, > Ismael > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I've prepared a KIP to add a configurable delay to the initial consumer > > group rebalance. > >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

; coordinator to wait that long. By doing this we do not need to bump up > the > > protocol either. > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Damian Guy > wrote: > > > >> Hi Ismael, > >> > >> Mostly to avoid the pr

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

onsumer group has > > 10 instanced and should be scaled up to 20, it would make sense to do > > this with a single rebalance, too. Thus, I am wondering, if it would > > make sense to apply this delay each time a new consumer joins group, > > even if the group is not empty? > >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

> > >> a new consumer joins a group (we actually did something similar to > batch > > >> ISR change propagation). For example, let's say on the broker side, we > > will > > >> always delay 2 seconds each time we see a new consumer joining a > > consumer > &

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

inguish both cases easily, and apply the delay only if it > received the LeaveGroupRequest but not if a consumer times out. > > Does this make sense? > > -Matthias > > On 3/27/17 1:56 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > @Becket > > > > Thanks for the feedback. Yes, i li

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

ts on that? Doing something similar on leave is valid, but i'd prefer to consider it separately from this. Thanks, Damian On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 at 09:48 Damian Guy wrote: > Matthias, > > Yes i know. > > Thanks, > Damian > > On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 at 18:17 Matthias J. Sax &g

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

iven the new approach. > > Ismael > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > All, > > I'd like to get this back to the original discussion about Delaying > initial > > consumer group rebalance. > > I think i'm leaning towards sti

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

t; > me. It matches the default consumer heartbeat interval, which controls > > typical rebalance latency, so there's some consistency there. > > > > Also, one minor comment: I guess the actual delay for each group will be > > the minimum of the group's rebalance timeout

Re: [VOTE] KIP-129: Kafka Streams Exactly-Once Semantics

Thanks Matthias +1 On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 at 07:34 Eno Thereska wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thanks Matthias, > Eno > > On 20 Mar 2017, at 18:27, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I would like to start the vote for KIP-129. Of course, feel free to > > provide some more feedback on the D

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

n 1 sec, then "resetting clock" will cause the whole > delay to be no more than 1 + 3 = 4 secs; while extending it will cause it > to be 1 + 3 * 10 = 31 secs? > > > > Guozhang > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > Thanks D

Re: [VOTE] KIP-120: Cleanup Kafka Streams builder API

Thanks Matthias. +1 On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 at 22:40 Matthias J. Sax wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to start the VOTE on KIP-120: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-120%3A+Cleanup+Kafka+Streams+builder+API > > If you have further comments, please reply to the DISCUSS thread. >

[VOTE] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

Hi All, I'd like to start the voting thread on KIP-134: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-134%3A+Delay+initial+consumer+group+rebalance Thanks, Damian

Re: [VOTE] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

gt; > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Eno Thereska > > wrote: > > > > > +1 (non binding) > > > > > > Thanks > > > Eno > > > > On 30 Mar 2017, at 18:01, Matthias J. Sax > > wrote: > > > > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

t; > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Bill Bejeck > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1(non-binding) > > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

nding. > > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Bill Bejeck wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Mathieu Fenniak < > > > mathieu.fenn...@replicon.com> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

; > >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Eno Thereska < > eno.there...@gmail.com > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > +1 (non binding) > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks > > > >> &g

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-114: KTable materialization and improved semantics

Damian suggested "queryableStore(String > >>>>>>>>> storeName)", > >>>>>>>>> which returns a QueryableStateStore, and can replace the > >>>>>>>>> `KafkaStreams.store` function; 2) comparing those two opt

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP 130: Expose states of active tasks to KafkaStreams public API

gt; >> > > > > only expose the state of the process but not the > >> finer grained > >> > > per-thread > >> > > > > state. > >>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-134: Delay initial consumer group rebalance

ay is acceptable for streams, I would prefer adding the configuration to the broker so that we can address both problems. On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 at 17:11 Onur Karaman wrote: > Hi Damian. > > Can you copy the point Becket made earlier that you say isn't addressed? > > On Thu, Apr 6, 20

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-114: KTable materialization and improved semantics

ecify a store name for > >> `KTable#filter` -- would it be queryable? If so, would this imply we'd > >> always materialize the state store, or...? > > > > I'll clarify in the KIP with some more examples. Materialization will be > an internal concept. A s

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP 141 - ProducerRecordBuilder Interface

Hi Stephane, Thanks for the KIP. Overall it looks ok, though i think the builder should enforce the required parameters by supplying them via the constructor, i.e, public ProducerRecordBuilder(String topic, V value) You can then remove the withValue and withTopic methods I also think withForce

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-138: Change punctuate semantics

Hi Michal, Thanks for the KIP. I'd like to propose a bit more of a radical change to the API. 1. deprecate the punctuate method on Processor 2. create a new Functional Interface just for Punctuation, something like: interface Punctuator { void punctuate(long timestamp) } 3. add a new schedule

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-138: Change punctuate semantics

t; This way it's consistent between Processor and Transformer. > > > BTW, looking at this I found a glitch in the javadoc and put a comment > there: > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/2413/files#r112634612 > > and PR: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/2884 > > C

Re: [VOTE] KIP 130: Expose states of active tasks to KafkaStreams public API

+1 On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 at 09:06 Eno Thereska wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thanks > Eno > > > On 21 Apr 2017, at 05:58, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > > +1. Thanks a lot for the KIP! > > > > Guozhang > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Florian Hussonnois < > fhussonn...@gmail.com> > > wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-114: KTable state stores and improved semantics

+1 On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 at 19:21 Sriram Subramanian wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Guozhang Wang > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Bill Bejeck wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:48 PM Matthias J. Sax > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1

Re: [VOTE] KIP-99: Add Global Tables to Kafka Streams

; > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > I'm glad this super-common use-case will become more performant now. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Damian Guy > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > &

Re: [VOTE] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

+1 On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 10:48 Ismael Juma wrote: > Thanks for the KIP, +1 (binding). > > Ismael > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Eno Thereska > wrote: > > > The discussion points for KIP-105 are addressed. At this point we'd like > > to start the vote for it: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.o

Re: [VOTE] KIP-104: Granular Sensors for Streams

+1 On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 09:37 Eno Thereska wrote: > The discussion points for KIP-104 are addressed. At this point we'd like > to start the vote for it: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-104%3A+Granular+Sensors+for+Streams > < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/disp

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-104: Granular Sensors for Streams

Eno - I'm +1 on this change. Thanks, Damian On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 at 20:45 Eno Thereska wrote: > I can see the point that all of a sudden exposing the internal Metrics > class might be too big a bite to take in this KIP, since the Metrics class > might have to be cleaned up further. I was perhaps n

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Grant Henke

Congratulations! On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 at 03:35 Jun Rao wrote: > Grant, > > Thanks for all your contribution! Congratulations! > > Jun > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > The PMC for Apache Kafka has invited Grant Henke to join as a > > committer and we are pleased to a

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-114: KTable materialization and improved semantics

Hi Eno, Thanks for the KIP. Some comments: 1. I'd probably rename materialized to materialize. 2. I don't think the addition of the new Log compaction mechanism is necessary for this KIP, i.e, the KIP is useful without it. Maybe that should be a different KIP? 3. What will happen w

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-114: KTable materialization and improved semantics

that it is > > transforming its underlying changelog stream to a normal stream. > > 2. As Damian mentioned, there are a few scenarios where the serdes are > > already specified in a previous operation whereas it is not known before > > calling materialize, for example: > >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-114: KTable materialization and improved semantics

> > -Matthias > > On 1/23/17 1:39 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > I'm not a fan of materialize. I think it interrupts the flow, i.e, > > > > table.mapValue(..).materialize().join(..).materialize() > > compared to: > > table.mapValues(..).join(..) >

Re: Fwd: [DISCUSS] KIP-114: KTable materialization and improved semantics

e.org > >>> > >>> That not what I meant by "huge impact". > >>> > >>> I refer to the actions related to materialize a KTable: creating a > >>> RocksDB store and a changelog topic -- users should be aware about > >>

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-114: KTable materialization and improved semantics

o >>>> >>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>> From: "Matthias J. Sax" >>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-114: KTable materialization and improved >>>>> semantics >>>>> Date: 24 January 2017 a

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-114: KTable materialization and improved semantics

the discovery of remote shards of the > same > >>>>> KTable. > >>>>> > >>>>> @Michael: Yes, right now we do have a lot of overloads and I am not a > >>>>> big fan of those -- I would rather prefer a builder pattern. But that > >>>>> might be a

[DISCUSS] KIP-116 - Add State Store Checkpoint Interval Configuration

Hi all, I would like to start the discussion on KIP-116: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-116+-+Add+State+Store+Checkpoint+Interval+Configuration Thanks, Damian

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >