+1 for the KIP and +1 what Xavier said as well. On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:57 AM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, +1 for the KIP > > On Wed, 24 May 2017 at 08:57 Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 to what Xavier said > > > > On Wed, 24 May 2017 at 06:45 Xavier Léauté <xav...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > >> I don't think we should wait for entries from each stream, since that > >> might > >> limit the usefulness of the cogroup operator. There are instances where > it > >> can be useful to compute something based on data from one or more > stream, > >> without having to wait for all the streams to produce something for the > >> group. In the example I gave in the discussion, it is possible to > compute > >> impression/auction statistics without having to wait for click data, > which > >> can typically arrive several minutes late. > >> > >> We could have a separate discussion around adding inner / outer > modifiers > >> to each of the streams to decide which fields are optional / required > >> before sending updates if we think that might be useful. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:28 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > The proposal LGTM, +1 > >> > > >> > One question I have is about when to send the record to the resulted > >> KTable > >> > changelog. For example in your code snippet in the wiki page, before > you > >> > see the end result of > >> > > >> > 1L, Customer[ > >> > > >> > cart:{Item[no:01], Item[no:03], Item[no:04]}, > >> > purchases:{Item[no:07], Item[no:08]}, > >> > wishList:{Item[no:11]} > >> > ] > >> > > >> > > >> > You will firs see > >> > > >> > 1L, Customer[ > >> > > >> > cart:{Item[no:01]}, > >> > purchases:{}, > >> > wishList:{} > >> > ] > >> > > >> > 1L, Customer[ > >> > > >> > cart:{Item[no:01]}, > >> > purchases:{Item[no:07],Item[no:08]}, > >> > > >> > wishList:{} > >> > ] > >> > > >> > 1L, Customer[ > >> > > >> > cart:{Item[no:01]}, > >> > purchases:{Item[no:07],Item[no:08]}, > >> > > >> > wishList:{} > >> > ] > >> > > >> > ... > >> > > >> > > >> > I'm wondering if it makes more sense to only start sending the update > if > >> > the corresponding agg-key has seen at least one input from each of the > >> > input stream? Maybe it is out of the scope of this KIP and we can make > >> it a > >> > more general discussion in a separate one. > >> > > >> > > >> > Guozhang > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Xavier Léauté <xav...@confluent.io> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi Kyle, I left a few more comments in the discussion thread, if you > >> > > wouldn't mind taking a look > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:31 AM Kyle Winkelman < > >> winkelman.k...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hello all, > >> > > > > >> > > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-150. > >> > > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-150+-+ > >> > > Kafka-Streams+Cogroup > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > Kyle > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > -- Guozhang > >> > > >> > > >