Thanks, Matthias; I changed it to `ANY` which is the shortest and not misleading.
Cheers, Alieh On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:42 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote: > Adding an enum is a good idea! > > Wondering if `UNORDERED` is the best name? Want to avoid bike shedding, > just asking. > > We could also use `UNDEFINED` / `UNSPECIFIED` / `NONE` / `ANY` ? > > In the end, the result _might_ be ordered, we just don't guarantee any > order. > > > -Matthias > > On 11/20/23 9:17 AM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: > > Hi all, > > I added the public enum `ResultOrder` to the KIP which helps with keeping > > three values (unordered, ascending, and descending) for the query > results. > > Therefore the method `isAscending()` is changed to `resultOrder()` which > > returns either the user specified result order or `unorderd`. > > Cheers, > > Alieh > > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:40 PM Alieh Saeedi <asae...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > >> Thank you, Guozhag and Bruno, for reviewing the KIP and reading the > whole > >> discussion thread. I appreciate your help:) > >> The KIP is now corrected and updated. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Alieh > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:43 AM Bruno Cadonna <cado...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks Alieh, > >>> > >>> I am +1 (binding). > >>> > >>> However, although we agreed on not specifying an order of the results > by > >>> default, there is still the following sentence in the KIP: > >>> > >>> "The order of the returned records is by default ascending by > timestamp. > >>> The method withDescendingTimestamps() can reverse the order. Btw, > >>> withAscendingTimestamps() method can be used for code readability > >>> purpose. " > >>> > >>> Could you please change it and also fix what Guozhang commented? > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Bruno > >>> > >>> On 11/19/23 2:12 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > >>>> Thanks Alieh, > >>>> > >>>> I read through the wiki page and the DISCUSS thread, all LGTM except a > >>>> minor thing in javadoc: > >>>> > >>>> "The query returns the records with a global ascending order of keys. > >>>> The records with the same key are ordered based on their insertion > >>>> timestamp in ascending order. Both the global and partial ordering are > >>>> modifiable with the corresponding methods defined for the class." > >>>> > >>>> Since this KIP is only for a single key, there's no key ordering but > >>>> only timestamp ordering right? Maybe the javadoc can be updated > >>>> accordingly. > >>>> > >>>> Otherwise, LGTM. > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:36 AM Alieh Saeedi > >>>> <asae...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening > the > >>>>> voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> Alieh > >>> > >> > > >
