Paolo, I have indeed voted +1 on the KIP itself, but I thought you only have two binding +1s (Jason and myself); overlooked the vote from Damian and I was expecting Ismael to vote.
So I think you are all good now :) Guozhang On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Paolo Patierno <ppatie...@live.com> wrote: > Sorry Guozhang ... reviewing the emails thread I have misunderstood your > +1 which was not a vote but just about the wiki design. > > So the vote is still opened with 2 binding votes and 5 non binding votes. > ------------------------------ > *From:* Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Monday, November 13, 2017 9:21:07 PM > *To:* Paolo Patierno > *Cc:* dev@kafka.apache.org > > *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the > new Admin Client API > > I'm not sure if Ismael's reply on the mailing list is a casted vote for > this KIP. > > @Ismael, could you review the KIP again and cast your vote if possible? > > > Guozhang > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Paolo Patierno <ppatie...@live.com> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'm going to close this vote because this KIP was accepted with : >> >> >> 3 binding votes >> >> 5 non-binding votes >> >> >> Thanks everyone for comments and for voting. >> >> >> *Paolo Patierno* >> >> *Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat **Microsoft MVP on **Azure & >> IoT* >> *Microsoft Azure Advisor* >> >> Twitter : @ppatierno <http://twitter.com/ppatierno> >> Linkedin : paolopatierno <http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno> >> Blog : DevExperience <http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Paolo Patierno <ppatie...@live.com> >> *Sent:* Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:38 AM >> *To:* Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org >> *Subject:* Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the >> new Admin Client API >> >> So I have updated the KIP-204<https://cwiki.apache.o >> rg/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+Adding+records+delet >> ion+operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API> using a DeleteRecords class >> as a wrapper of the low watermark for now. >> >> I have updated the related PR<https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4132> >> as well. >> >> >> Thanks for your comments ! >> >> >> Paolo. >> >> >> Paolo Patierno >> Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat >> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT >> Microsoft Azure Advisor >> >> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno> >> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno> >> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Colin McCabe <co...@cmccabe.xyz> >> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 8:08 PM >> To: Guozhang Wang; dev@kafka.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to the >> new Admin Client API >> >> +1 for returning a named object rather than Long. >> >> C. >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017, at 10:07, Guozhang Wang wrote: >> > Sounds good to me for returning an object than a Long type. >> > >> > >> > Guozhang >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paolo Patierno <ppatie...@live.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Ismael, >> > > >> > > >> > > yes it makes sense. Taking a look to the other methods in the Admin> >> > Client, there is no use case returning a "simple" type : most of >> > > them are> > Void or complex result represented by classes. >> > > >> > > In order to support future extensibility I like your idea. >> > > >> > > Let's see what's the others opinions otherwise I'll start to >> > > implement in> > such way. >> > > >> > > >> > > I have updated the KIP and the PR using "recordsToDelete" >> > > parameter as> > well. >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks >> > > >> > > >> > > Paolo Patierno >> > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat >> > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT >> > > Microsoft Azure Advisor >> > > >> > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno> >> > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno> >> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/> >> > > >> > > >> > > ________________________________ >> > > From: isma...@gmail.com <isma...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael >> > > Juma <> > ism...@juma.me.uk> >> > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 1:15 PM >> > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org >> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation to >> > > the new> > Admin Client API >> > > >> > > Paolo, >> > > >> > > You might return the timestamp if the user did a delete by >> > > timestamp for> > example. But let's maybe hear what others think >> before we change >> > > the KIP.> > >> > > Ismael >> > > >> > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Paolo Patierno >> > > <ppatie...@live.com>> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi Ismael, >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > 1. yes it sounds better. Agree. >> > > > 2. We are using a wrapper class like RecordsToDelete in order >> > > > to allow> > > future operations that won't be based only on >> specifying an >> > > > offset. At> > same >> > > > time with this wrapper class and static methods (i.e. >> > > > beforeOffset) the> > API >> > > > is really clear to understand. About moving to use a class for >> > > > wrapping> > the >> > > > lowWatermark and not just a Long, do you think that in the >> > > > future we> > could >> > > > have some other information to bring as part of the delete >> > > > operation ? or> > > just for being clearer in terms of API (so not >> just with a >> > > > comment) ?> > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > Paolo. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Paolo Patierno >> > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat >> > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT >> > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor >> > > > >> > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno> >> > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> >> > > Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > ________________________________ >> > > > From: isma...@gmail.com <isma...@gmail.com> on behalf of Ismael >> > > > Juma <> > > ism...@juma.me.uk> >> > > > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 12:33 PM >> > > > To: dev@kafka.apache.org >> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] KIP-204 : adding records deletion operation >> > > > to the> > new >> > > > Admin Client API >> > > > >> > > > Hi Paolo, >> > > > >> > > > The KIP looks good, I have a couple of comments: >> > > > >> > > > 1. partitionsAndOffsets could perhaps be `recordsToDelete`. >> > > > 2. It seems a bit inconsistent that the argument is >> > > > `RecordsToDelete`,> > but >> > > > the result is just a `Long`. Should the result be >> > > > `DeleteRecords` or> > > something like that? It could then have a >> field logStartOffset or> > > lowWatermark instead of having to document it >> via a comment only.> > > >> > > > Ismael >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Paolo Patierno >> > > > <ppatie...@live.com>> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi all, >> > > > > >> > > > > I didn't see any further discussion around this KIP, so I'd like >> > > > > to> > start >> > > > > the vote for it. >> > > > > >> > > > > Just for reference : https://cwiki.apache.org/confl >> > > > > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-204+%3A+adding+records+deletion+ >> > > > > operation+to+the+new+Admin+Client+API >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > >> > > > > Paolo Patierno >> > > > > Senior Software Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat >> > > > > Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT >> > > > > Microsoft Azure Advisor >> > > > > >> > > > > Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno> >> > > > > Linkedin : paolopatierno >> > > > > <http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>> > > > Blog : >> DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > -- Guozhang >> >> > > > -- > -- Guozhang > -- -- Guozhang
