happy with the
> current
> > proposal. I think once you make the minor
> > updates to the KIP document this will be ready for voting again.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Sophie
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 8:26 AM Shay Lin wrote:
> >
> > > Hi S
KStream object, but does mutate the
> upstream KStream object, what is semantically two different things. It
> also has an impact on how we need to implement the feature. The KIP
> should explicitly explain this case.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 7/26/23 4:58 PM, Shay Lin wrote:
&
Hi all,
It's been a few days, if there is no further comments or questions I'd like
to call for a vote. There is an existing VOTE thread if you search for
KIP-759.
Thank you,
Shay
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 7:30 PM Shay Lin wrote:
> Very good catch, Matthias. I updated the KIP to s
; >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 (binding)
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:43 PM Matthias J. Sax
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> +1 (binding)
> > >>>
> > >>> On 7/11/23 11:16 AM,
Hi all,
Great discussion thread. May I take this KIP up? If it’s alright my plan is
to update the KIP with the operator `markAsPartitioned()`.
As you have discussed and pointed out, there are implications to downstream
joins or aggregation operations. Still, the operator is intended for
advanced
Hi all,
Could you give me the appropriate access (edit Wiki/KIP, Jira etc) to
contribute to AK?
My confluence and Jira IDs are the same: lqxshay
Thanks in advance,
Shay
aking a small incremental step sounds like a good approach to me.
>
> Let's see if others agree or not.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 6/28/23 5:29 PM, Shay Lin wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Great discussion thread. May I take this KIP up? If it’s alright my plan
>
Hi all,
I'd like to call a vote on KIP-759: Unneeded repartition canceling
The KIP has been under discussion for quite some time(two years). This is a
valuable optimization for advanced users. I hope we can push this toward
the finish line this time.
Link to the KIP:
https://cwiki.apache.org/conf
d on a KTable that
> >>> wasn't followed by a groupBy? If you have multiple key-changing
> >> operators,
> >>> would you need to add markAsPartitioned after each one? If not, what
> are
> >>> the semantics of that? These are the main question
Shay Lin created KAFKA-13699:
Summary: ProcessorContext does not expose Stream Time
Key: KAFKA-13699
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13699
Project: Kafka
Issue Type: Bug
10 matches
Mail list logo
