Hi all,
Thanks a lot for your comments. For the single interface (RichXXX and
XXXWithKey) solution, I have already submitted a PR but probably it is
outdated (when the KIP first proposed), I need to revisit that one.
@Guozhang, from our (offline) discussion, I understood that we may not make
it merge this KIP into the upcoming release, as KIP-159 is not voted yet
(because we want both KIP-149 and KIP-159 to be as an "atomic" merge). So
I decided to wait until KIP-182 gets stable (there are some minor updates
AFAIK) and update the KIP accordingly. Please correct me if I am wrong or I
misunderstood.
Cheers,
Jeyhun
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:11 PM Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 at 13:46 Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 for me as well for collapsing.
> >
> > Jeyhun, could you update the wiki accordingly to show what's the final
> > updates post KIP-182 that needs to be done in KIP-159 including KIP-149?
> > The child page I made is just a suggestion, but you would still need to
> > update your proposal for people to comment and vote on.
> >
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > One interface is cleaner.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for me on collapsing the RichXXXX and ValueXXXXWithKey interfaces
> > > into 1
> > > > interface.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Bill
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Jeyhun Karimov <
> je.kari...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Damian,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your feedback. Actually, this (what you propose) was the
> > > first
> > > > > idea of KIP-149. Then we decided to divide it into two KIPs. I also
> > > > > expressed my opinion that keeping the two interfaces (Rich and
> > withKey)
> > > > > separate would add more overloads. So, email discussion resulted
> that
> > > > this
> > > > > would not be a problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Our initial idea was similar to :
> > > > >
> > > > > public abstract class RichValueMapper<K, V, VR> implements
> > > > > ValueMapperWithKey<K, V, VR>, RichFunction {
> > > > > ......
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So, we check the type of object, whether it is RichXXX or
> XXXWithKey
> > > > inside
> > > > > the called method and continue accordingly.
> > > > >
> > > > > If this is ok with the community, I would like to revert the
> current
> > > > design
> > > > > to this again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Jeyhun
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:02 PM Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jeyhun,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for sending out the update. I guess i was thinking more
> > along
> > > > the
> > > > > > lines of option 2 where we collapse the RichXXXX and
> > ValueXXXXWithKey
> > > > etc
> > > > > > interfaces into 1 interface that has all of the arguments. I
> think
> > we
> > > > > then
> > > > > > only need to add one additional overload for each operator?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Damian
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 at 10:59 Jeyhun Karimov <
> je.kari...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to resume the discussion on KIP-159. I (and
> > Guozhang)
> > > > > think
> > > > > > > that releasing KIP-149 and KIP-159 in the same release would
> make
> > > > sense
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > avoid a release with "partial" public APIs. There is a KIP [1]
> > > > proposed
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > Guozhang (and approved by me) to unify both KIPs.
> > > > > > > Please feel free to comment on this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.
> > > > > action?pageId=73637757
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Jeyhun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 2:00 AM Jeyhun Karimov <
> > > je.kari...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Matthias, Damian, all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for your comments and sorry for super-late update.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sure, the DSL refactoring is not blocking for this KIP.
> > > > > > > > I made some changes to KIP document based on my prototype.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please feel free to comment.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:35 PM Matthias J. Sax <
> > > > > matth...@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> I would not block this KIP with regard to DSL refactoring.
> > IMHO,
> > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> just finish this one and the DSL refactoring will help later
> > on
> > > to
> > > > > > > >> reduce the number of overloads.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> -Matthias
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On 7/7/17 5:28 AM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > I am following the related thread in the mailing list and
> > > > looking
> > > > > > > >> forward
> > > > > > > >> > for one-shot solution for overloads issue.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Cheers,
> > > > > > > >> > Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:32 AM Damian Guy <
> > > > damian....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >> Hi Jeyhun,
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> About overrides, what other alternatives do we have? For
> > > > > > > >> >>> backwards-compatibility we have to add extra methods to
> > the
> > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > >> >> ones.
> > > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >> It wasn't clear to me in the KIP if these are new methods
> > or
> > > > > > > replacing
> > > > > > > >> >> existing ones.
> > > > > > > >> >> Also, we are currently discussing options for replacing
> the
> > > > > > > overrides.
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> >> Damian
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> >>> About ProcessorContext vs RecordContext, you are right.
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> need to
> > > > > > > >> >>> implement a prototype to understand the full picture as
> > some
> > > > > parts
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> >>> KIP might not be as straightforward as I thought.
> > > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > >> >>> Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 10:40 AM Damian Guy <
> > > > > damian....@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>> HI Jeyhun,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>> Is the intention that these methods are new overloads
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > > KStream,
> > > > > > > >> >>>> KTable, etc?
> > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>> It is worth noting that a ProcessorContext is not a
> > > > > > RecordContext.
> > > > > > > A
> > > > > > > >> >>>> RecordContext, as it stands, only exists during the
> > > > processing
> > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > >> >>> single
> > > > > > > >> >>>> record. Whereas the ProcessorContext exists for the
> > > lifetime
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >>>> Processor. Sot it doesn't make sense to cast a
> > > > ProcessorContext
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> >>>> RecordContext.
> > > > > > > >> >>>> You mentioned above passing the
> InternalProcessorContext
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> init()
> > > > > > > >> >>>> calls. It is internal for a reason and i think it
> should
> > > > remain
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> >> way.
> > > > > > > >> >>>> It might be better to move the recordContext() method
> > from
> > > > > > > >> >>>> InternalProcessorContext to ProcessorContext.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>> In the KIP you have an example showing:
> > > > > > > >> >>>> richMapper.init((RecordContext) processorContext);
> > > > > > > >> >>>> But the interface is:
> > > > > > > >> >>>> public interface RichValueMapper<V, VR> {
> > > > > > > >> >>>> VR apply(final V value, final RecordContext
> > > > recordContext);
> > > > > > > >> >>>> }
> > > > > > > >> >>>> i.e., there is no init(...), besides as above this
> > wouldn't
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > >> sense.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> >>>> Damian
> > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 at 23:30 Jeyhun Karimov <
> > > > > je.kari...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> Hi Matthias,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> Actually my intend was to provide to RichInitializer
> and
> > > > later
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> >>>> could
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> provide the context of the record as you also
> mentioned.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> I remove that not to confuse the users.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> Regarding the RecordContext and ProcessorContext
> > > > interfaces, I
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> realized the InternalProcessorContext class. Can't we
> > pass
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> parameter to init() method of processors? Then we
> would
> > be
> > > > > able
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> >> get
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> RecordContext easily with just a method call.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:14 PM Matthias J. Sax <
> > > > > > > >> >>> matth...@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> One more thing:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> I don't think `RichInitializer` does make sense. As
> we
> > > > don't
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> >> any
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> input record, there is also no context. We could of
> > > course
> > > > > > > provide
> > > > > > > >> >>> the
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> context of the record that triggers the init call,
> but
> > > this
> > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > >> >>> be
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> semantically questionable. Also, the context for this
> > > first
> > > > > > > record
> > > > > > > >> >>> will
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> be provided by the consecutive call to aggregate
> > anyways.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> -Matthias
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> On 6/29/17 1:11 PM, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Thanks for updating the KIP.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> I have one concern with regard to backward
> > > compatibility.
> > > > > You
> > > > > > > >> >>> suggest
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> use RecrodContext as base interface for
> > > ProcessorContext.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > >> >> will
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> break compatibility.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> I think, we should just have two independent
> > interfaces.
> > > > Our
> > > > > > own
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> ProcessorContextImpl class would implement both.
> This
> > > > allows
> > > > > > us
> > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > >> >>>> cast
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> it to `RecordContext` and thus limit the visible
> > scope.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> -Matthias
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>> On 6/27/17 1:35 PM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> I updated the KIP w.r.t. discussion and comments.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Basically I eliminated overloads for particular
> > method
> > > if
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> more
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> than 3.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> As we can see there are a lot of overloads (and
> more
> > > will
> > > > > > come
> > > > > > > >> >>> with
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> KIP-149
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> :) )
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> So, is it wise to
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> wait the result of constructive DSL thread or
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> extend KIP to address this issue as well or
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> continue as it is?
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:29 PM Guozhang Wang <
> > > > > > > >> >>> wangg...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> LGTM. Thanks!
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Jeyhun Karimov <
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> je.kari...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the comment Matthias. After all the
> > > > discussion
> > > > > > > >> >>> (thanks
> > > > > > > >> >>>> to
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> all
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> participants), I think this (single method that
> > > passes
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> RecordContext
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> object) is the best alternative.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Just a side note: I think KAFKA-3907 [1] can also
> > be
> > > > > > > >> >> integrated
> > > > > > > >> >>>> into
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> KIP by adding related method inside RecordContext
> > > > > > interface.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3907
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:50 PM Matthias J. Sax <
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> matth...@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to push this discussion further. It
> > > seems
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > got
> > > > > > > >> >>>> nice
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> alternatives (thanks for the summary Jeyhun!).
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> With respect to RichFunctions and allowing them
> to
> > > be
> > > > > > > >> >>> stateful, I
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> have
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> my doubt as expressed already. From my
> > > understanding,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> idea
> > > > > > > >> >>>> was
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> give access to record metadata information only.
> > If
> > > > you
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > >> >>>> do
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> a
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> stateful computation you should rather use
> > > > #transform().
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, as pointed out, we would need to
> > switch
> > > > to
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> supplier-pattern introducing many more
> overloads.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> For those reason, I advocate for a simple
> > interface
> > > > > with a
> > > > > > > >> >>> single
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> method
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> that passes in a RecordContext object.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/17 5:15 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the comprehensive summary!
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Personally I'd prefer the option of passing
> > > > > RecordContext
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> >>> an
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> additional
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> parameter into he overloaded function. But I'm
> > also
> > > > > open
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> >>>> other
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> arguments
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> if there are sth. that I have overlooked.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Jeyhun Karimov
> <
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> je.kari...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments Matthias and
> Guozhang.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Below I mention the quick summary of the main
> > > > > > alternatives
> > > > > > > >> >> we
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> looked
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> at
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> introduce the Rich functions (I will refer to
> it
> > > as
> > > > > Rich
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> functions
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> until we
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> find better/another name). Initially the
> > proposed
> > > > > > > >> >>> alternatives
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> was
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> backwards-compatible, so I will not mention
> > them.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The related discussions are spread in KIP-149
> > and
> > > in
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> >> KIP
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> (KIP-159)
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion threads.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The idea of rich functions came into the
> > stage
> > > > with
> > > > > > > >> >>> KIP-149,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> in
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion thread. As a result we extended
> > KIP-149
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> >> support
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> Rich
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> functions as well.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. To as part of the Rich functions, we
> > provided
> > > > init
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> (ProcessorContext)
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> method. Afterwards, Dammian suggested that we
> > > should
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> >>>> provide
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ProcessorContext to users. As a result, we
> > > separated
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >> two
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> problems
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> into
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> two separate KIPs, as it seems they can be
> > solved
> > > in
> > > > > > > >> >>> parallel.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - One approach we considered was :
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface ValueMapperWithKey<K, V, VR>
> {
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> VR apply(final K key, final V value);
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface RichValueMapper<K, V, VR>
> > extends
> > > > > > > >> >>>> RichFunction{
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface RichFunction {
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> void init(RecordContext recordContext);
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> void close();
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface RecordContext {
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> String applicationId();
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> TaskId taskId();
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> StreamsMetrics metrics();
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> String topic();
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> int partition();
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> long offset();
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> long timestamp();
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Map<String, Object> appConfigs();
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Map<String, Object>
> > > appConfigsWithPrefix(String
> > > > > > > >> >> prefix);
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface ProcessorContext extends
> > > > > RecordContext
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> // all methods but the ones in
> RecordContext
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As a result:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> * . All "withKey" and "withoutKey" interfaces
> > can
> > > be
> > > > > > > >> >>> converted
> > > > > > > >> >>>> to
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> their
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich counterparts (with empty init() and
> close()
> > > > > > methods)
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *. All related Processors will accept Rich
> > > > interfaces
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> >>> their
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> constructors.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *. So, we convert the related "withKey" or
> > > > > "withoutKey"
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> interfaces
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Rich
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interface while building the topology and
> > > initialize
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> >>>> related
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> processors
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with Rich interfaces only.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *. We will not need to overloaded methods for
> > rich
> > > > > > > >> >> functions
> > > > > > > >> >>> as
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> Rich
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces extend withKey interfaces. We will
> > just
> > > > > check
> > > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> object
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> type
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and act accordingly.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. There was some thoughts that the above
> > approach
> > > > > does
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> support
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> lambdas
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> so we should support only one method, only
> > > > > > > >> >>> init(RecordContext),
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> as
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> part
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rich interfaces.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still in discussion. Personally I
> think
> > > Rich
> > > > > > > >> >>> interfaces
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> are
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition lambda-free and we should not care
> > much
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > >> >> it.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Thanks to Matthias's discussion, an
> > alternative
> > > > we
> > > > > > > >> >>>> considered
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> was
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pass in the RecordContext as method parameter.
> > > This
> > > > > > might
> > > > > > > >> >>> even
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> allow
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> use Lambdas and we could keep the name
> > > RichFunction
> > > > as
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> preserve
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nature of being a function.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "If you go with `init()` and `close()` we
> > > basically
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> allow users to have an in-memory state for a
> > > > function.
> > > > > > > >> >> Thus,
> > > > > > > >> >>> we
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> cannot
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> share a single instance of RichValueMapper
> (etc)
> > > > over
> > > > > > > >> >>> multiple
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> tasks
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> we would need a supplier pattern similar to
> > > > > > #transform().
> > > > > > > >> >> And
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> this
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "break the flow" of the API, as
> > > > > > (Rich)ValueMapperSupplier
> > > > > > > >> >>> would
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> not
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> inherit from ValueMapper and thus we would
> need
> > > many
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> >>>> overload
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> for
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> KStream/KTable classes". (Copy paste from
> > > Matthias's
> > > > > > > email)
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:18 AM Matthias J.
> Sax <
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> matth...@confluent.io
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we did consider this, and there is no
> > > > consensus
> > > > > > yet
> > > > > > > >> >>> what
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> the
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> best
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative is.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Jeyhun: the email thread got pretty long.
> > Maybe
> > > > you
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> >>> give
> > > > > > > >> >>>> a
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> quick
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> summary of the current state of the
> discussion?
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/17 6:04 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the explanation Jeyhun and
> > Matthias.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just read through both KIP-149 and
> > > KIP-159
> > > > > and
> > > > > > am
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> wondering
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> if
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guys have considered a slight different
> > approach
> > > > for
> > > > > > > rich
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> function,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to add the `RecordContext` into the apply
> > > > functions
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> additional
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter. For example:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interface RichValueMapper<V, VR> {
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR apply(final V value, final RecordContext
> > > > > context);
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // then in KStreams
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VR> KStream<K, VR> mapValues(ValueMapper<?
> > > super
> > > > > V, ?
> > > > > > > >> >>>> extends
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> VR>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapper);
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VR> KStream<K, VR>
> > > > > > mapValueswithContext(RichValueMapper
> > > > > > > >> >> <?
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> super
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> V, ?
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extends VR> mapper);
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The caveat is that it will introduces more
> > > > > overloads;
> > > > > > > >> >> but I
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> think
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #.overloads are mainly introduced by 1)
> serde
> > > > > > overrides
> > > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > >> >>>> 2)
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state-store-supplier overides, both of which
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> >> reduced
> > > > > > > >> >>>> in
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> near
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future, and I felt this overloading is still
> > > > > > worthwhile,
> > > > > > > >> >> as
> > > > > > > >> >>>> it
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> has
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following benefits:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) still allow lambda expressions.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) clearer code path (do not need to
> "convert"
> > > > from
> > > > > > > >> >>> non-rich
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> functions
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich functions)
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe this approach has already been
> discussed
> > > > and I
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > >> >>> have
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> overlooked
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the email thread; anyways, lmk.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Matthias J.
> > > Sax <
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> matth...@confluent.io>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Jeyhun. As already mention,
> the
> > > > > overall
> > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> improvement
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas are overlapping and/or contradicting
> > each
> > > > > > other.
> > > > > > > >> >> For
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> this
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not all ideas can be accomplished and some
> > Jira
> > > > > might
> > > > > > > >> >> just
> > > > > > > >> >>>> be
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> closed
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "won't fix".
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this reason, we try to do those KIP
> > > > discussion
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> >>> are
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> large
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> scope
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get an overall picture to converge to an
> > > > overall
> > > > > > > >> >>>> consisted
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> API.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Jeyhun: about the overloads. Yes, we might
> > get
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> >>>> overload.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> It
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> might
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be sufficient though, to do a single
> > > > > xxxWithContext()
> > > > > > > >> >>>> overload
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide key+value+context. Otherwise, if
> > might
> > > > get
> > > > > > too
> > > > > > > >> >>> messy
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> having
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ValueMapper, ValueMapperWithKey,
> > > > > > > ValueMapperWithContext,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ValueMapperWithKeyWithContext.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, we also have the
> "builder
> > > > > pattern"
> > > > > > > >> >> idea
> > > > > > > >> >>>> as
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> an
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> API
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change and this might mitigate the overload
> > > > > problem.
> > > > > > > Not
> > > > > > > >> >>> for
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> simple
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function like map/flatMap etc but for joins
> > and
> > > > > > > >> >>>> aggregations.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, as I mentioned in an
> older
> > > > > email,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> >> am
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> personally
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine to break the pure functional
> interface,
> > > and
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - interface WithRecordContext with method
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> `open(RecordContext)`
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> (or
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `init(...)`, or any better name) -- but not
> > > > > > `close()`)
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - interface ValueMapperWithRecordContext
> > > > extends
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> ValueMapper,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WithRecordContext
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This would allow us to avoid any overload.
> Of
> > > > > course,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> >>>> don't
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> get
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "pure function" interface and also
> sacrifices
> > > > > > Lambdas.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am personally a little bit undecided what
> > the
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > >> >>>> option
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> might
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curious to hear what other think about this
> > > trade
> > > > > > off.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/17 6:13 PM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It subsumes partially. Initially the idea
> > was
> > > to
> > > > > > > >> >> support
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> RichFunctions
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate interface. Throughout the
> > discussion,
> > > > > > > however,
> > > > > > > >> >>> we
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> considered
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overloading the related methods (with
> > > > RecodContext
> > > > > > > >> >> param)
> > > > > > > >> >>>> is
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> better
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach than providing a separate
> > > RichFunction
> > > > > > > >> >>> interface.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:27 AM Guozhang
> > Wang <
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> wangg...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this KIP subsume this ticket as
> well?
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > jira/browse/KAFKA-4125
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Jeyhun
> > > > Karimov <
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> je.kari...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear community,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As we discussed in KIP-149 [DISCUSS]
> > thread
> > > > > [1], I
> > > > > > > >> >>> would
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> like
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiate
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KIP for rich functions (interfaces) [2].
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to get your comments.
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > http://search-hadoop.com/m/Kafka/uyzND1PMjdk2CslH12?subj=
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Re+DISCUSS+KIP+149+Enabling+key+access+in+
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ValueTransformer+ValueMapper+
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and+ValueJoiner
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 159%3A+Introducing+Rich+
> > > functions+to+Streams
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Cheers
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Cheers
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> -Cheers
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> -Cheers
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>> Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>>>
> > > > > > > >> >>> --
> > > > > > > >> >>> -Cheers
> > > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >>> Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >> >>>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > -Cheers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jeyhun
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > -Cheers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jeyhun
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > -Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeyhun
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
> >
>
