Yes, thank you everyone for your input!
I will incorporate the latest round of test revisions
and submit a VOTE thread later today :)
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:48 AM, Eno Thereska wrote:
>
> Steven,
>
> Sounds like we can start a VOTE thread on this? Is the KIP up to date with
> all the latest
Steven,
Sounds like we can start a VOTE thread on this? Is the KIP up to date with all
the latest comments?
Thanks
Eno
> On 8 Feb 2017, at 18:05, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>
> I like this idea. But to get clean and concise PRs, I would prefer to
> have a JIRA and extra PR for this.
>
> WDYT?
>
I like this idea. But to get clean and concise PRs, I would prefer to
have a JIRA and extra PR for this.
WDYT?
-Matthias
On 2/8/17 9:35 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> The KIP proposal LGTM, thanks Steven!
>
> One meta comment on the PR itself: I'm wondering if we could refactoring
> the implementa
The KIP proposal LGTM, thanks Steven!
One meta comment on the PR itself: I'm wondering if we could refactoring
the implementation of `KStream.print() / writeAsText()` to just be a
special impl of `peek()` then, like we did for `count` as for `aggregate`?
I.e. we can replace the `KeyValuePrinter` c
Far better! Thank you!
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Steven Schlansker
wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. I improved the javadoc a bit, do you like it better?
>
> /**
> * Perform an action on each record of {@code KStream}.
> * This is a stateless record-by-record operation (cf.
Thanks for the feedback. I improved the javadoc a bit, do you like it better?
/**
* Perform an action on each record of {@code KStream}.
* This is a stateless record-by-record operation (cf. {@link
#process(ProcessorSupplier, String...)}).
*
* Peek is a non-terminal opera
Many thanks for the KIP and the PR, Steven!
My opinion, too, is that we should consider including this.
One thing that I would like to see clarified is the difference between the
proposed peek() and existing functions map() and foreach(), for instance.
My understanding (see also the Java 8 links
Hi Steven,
Thanks for the KIP. I think this is a worthy addition to the API.
Thanks,
Damian
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 at 09:30 Eno Thereska wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like the proposal, thank you. I have found it frustrating myself not to
> be able to understand simple things, like how many records have been
Hi,
I like the proposal, thank you. I have found it frustrating myself not to be
able to understand simple things, like how many records have been currently
processed. The peek method would allow those kinds of diagnostics and debugging.
Gwen, it is possible to do this with the existing functio
I've read the wiki and am unclear about the proposal. Can you provide
something like a Javadoc for peek()? What would this method do?
Also, forgive me if I'm missing an important point here, but can't I
put the println statement in a map()?
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
Steven,
Thanks for your KIP. I move this discussion to dev mailing list -- KIPs
need to be discussed there (and can be cc'ed to user list).
Can you also add the KIP to the table "KIPs under discussion":
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals#KafkaImprovemen
Hello users@kafka,
I would like to propose a small KIP on the Streams framework
that simply adds a KStream#peek implementation.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-121%3A+Add+KStream+peek+method
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4720
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pul
12 matches
Mail list logo
