Hi Thanks for the comments so far. Since they mainly involve minor changes, I'd like to start a vote for this KIP. Thanks! https://lists.apache.org/thread/nwongf7bptvo6z1dfbo0ro63y48sxzqb
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 8:27 AM Calvin Liu <ca...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi > Just coming back from my vacation. Sorry for the late reply. > DJ03: Sure, will update the KIP for the naming change. > DJ04: Good catch, will update. > DJ05: Yeah, we can ignore this filter when it is null or an empty string. > DJ06: Will mention it uses re2j > > KT01: Sure, will do. > KT02: Will update. > KT03: Good idea, will mention it is an AND relation to the other filters. > Thanks. > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 5:33 PM Kirk True <k...@kirktrue.pro> wrote: > >> 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? >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
