Steven, thanks for your feedback.
I am not sure about KafkaStreamsBuilder (even if agree that it is better than KStreamBuilder), because it sounds like a builder that creates a KafkaStreams instance. But that's of course not the case. It builds a Topology -- that was the reason to consider calling it TopologyBuilder. I suggested StreamsTopologyBuilder (instead of TopologyBuilder) to avoid any confusion with the current TopologyBuilder (that we are going to rename to Topology). We could also go with DslBuilder (or DslTopologyBuilder as suggested by Michael) -- it should be clear, that this does not build a DSL :) to contract against KafkaStreamsBuilder. -Matthias On 3/13/17 12:46 PM, Steven Schlansker wrote: > >> On Mar 13, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io> wrote: >> >> Jay, >> >> thanks for your feedback >> >>> What if instead we called it KStreamsBuilder? >> >> That's the current name and I personally think it's not the best one. >> The main reason why I don't like KStreamsBuilder is, that we have the >> concepts of KStreams and KTables, and the builder creates both. However, >> the name puts he focus on KStream and devalues KTable. >> >> I understand your argument, and I am personally open the remove the >> "Topology" part, and name it "StreamsBuilder". Not sure what others >> think about this. > > If you worry about that, you could consider "KafkaStreamsBuilder" > which highlights that it is about Kafka Streams the project as > opposed to KStream the feature. A little bit wordier, but you probably > only type it a couple times. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
