DanielLeens commented on PR #10964: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/10964#issuecomment-4601589717
Thanks for taking the time to write this up. The source-side document assignment direction is much clearer to me than continuing to harden the current sink-side point-to-point exchange as the first production path. In particular, spelling out the route-bucket ownership, checkpoint boundaries, and the reason to defer a standalone keyed exchange directly addresses the architecture concerns that were raised earlier. Since the PR head is still the same `5a789c128a387726aedc9972bc7aa37b217d3cbb` revision that I already reviewed, I do not want to pretend a brand-new full Daniel re-review happened on unchanged code. So from my side this stays in reply-only / awaiting-update state rather than becoming a new full review on the current head. If you decide to keep this PR as the implementation vehicle, the next step needs to be a code update that matches the design direction and makes the intended scope explicit in the PR itself. Once there is a new commit, I am happy to re-review the latest head from scratch against the full Zeta runtime path. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
