Yes, I agree that it would be better to be consistent. I suggest `Long` and `null` everywhere if feasible as it's less opaque than the magic -1L value. The KIP page should be updated with what you decide.
Ismael On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Shikhar Bhushan <shik...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi Ismael, > > Good point. This is down to an implementation detail, the getter was added > to the base class for `SourceRecord` and `SinkRecord`, > `ConnectRecord`. `SourceRecord` > is treating missing timestamps as null while `SinkRecord` is treating it as > the default value `Record.NO_TIMESTAMP` (-1L). > > It probably makes sense to be consistent and use either Long everywhere or > the primitive long and default values. > > Feel free to add the comment on the PR > <https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1537/files> as well and I can follow > up there :-) > > Thanks, > > Shikhar > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:52 PM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > Hi Shikhar, > > > > Thanks for the KIP. One question: > > > > SinkRecord takes a `long` timestamp, but then exposes it via a method > that > > returns `Long`. Is this correct? And if so, can you please explain the > > reasoning? > > > > Ismael > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Shikhar Bhushan <shik...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > Kafkarati, > > > > > > Here is a pretty straightforward proposal, for exposing timestamps that > > > were added in Kafka 0.10 to the connect framework so connectors can > make > > > use of them: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-65%3A+Expose+timestamps+to+Connect > > > > > > Appreciate your thoughts! > > > > > > Shikhar > > > > > >
