Hi Calvin, Thanks for the KIP! This is not an area of understanding (yet!) but had a few questions:
KT01: I agree with David's DJ03. Would transactionalIdPattern or transactionalIdFilter still convey the idea? KT02: Can we change the command line option -transactionalIdPatternFilter to something more idiomatic like -transactional-id-pattern? KT03: Is it correct to assume there's an implicit AND for the different filters? Additional filters constrain vs. broaden the results, right? Thanks, Kirk On Mon, Apr 7, 2025, at 1:49 AM, David Jacot wrote: > Hi Calvin, > > Thanks for the update. > > DJ03: I wonder whether we should call it `TransactionalIdPattern`. Filter > is a bit redundant in my opinion. > > DJ04: The response could now return `INVALID_REGULAR_EXPRESSION` error if > the regex is invalid. > > DJ05: Should we say that all transactions are returned if the pattern is > null instead of empty? Or do we want to do it for both null and empty? > > DJ06: In the motivation, could you please explain that the pattern will > rely on re2j like KIP-848? Or you could actually add this to the "Proposed > Changes" section which misses in the current KIP. > > Best, > David > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2025 at 5:42 PM Calvin Liu <ca...@confluent.io.invalid> > wrote: > > > Hi Chia-Ping, > > Sure, I updated the field to be nullable. > > Thanks > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 9:54 PM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Do you mean the TransactionalIdPatternFilter in the ListTransaction > > > request > > > can be nullable? > > > > > > Yes, and the null means “all transaction ids” > > > > > > Best, > > > Chia-Ping > > > > > > > > > > Calvin Liu <ca...@confluent.io.invalid> 於 2025年4月5日 凌晨2:35 寫道： > > > > > > > > Do you mean the TransactionalIdPatternFilter in the ListTransaction > > > request > > > > can be nullable? > > > > > >
