I am moving this back to the DISCUSS thread... Last 10 emails were sent to VOTE thread.
Copying Guozhang's last summary below. Thanks for this summary. Very
comprehensive!
It seems, we all agree, that the current implementation of the context
at PAPI level is ok, but we should not leak it into DSL.
Thus, we can go with (2) or (3), were (3) is an extension to (2)
carrying the context to more operators than just sources. It also seems,
that we all agree, that many-to-one operations void the context.
I still think, that just going with plain (2) is too restrictive -- but
I am also fine if we don't go with the full proposal of (3).
Also note, that the two operators filter() and filterNot() don't modify
the record and thus for both, it would be absolutely valid to keep the
context.
I personally would keep the context for at least all one-to-one
operators. One-to-many is debatable and I am fine to not carry the
context further: at least the offset information is questionable for
this case -- note thought, that semantically, the timestamp is inherited
via one-to-many, and I also think this applies to "topic" and
"partition". Thus, I think it's still valuable information we can carry
downstreams.
-Matthias
> Jan: which approach are you referring to as "the approach that is on the
> table would be perfect"?
>
> Note that in today's PAPI layer we are already effectively exposing the
> record context which has the issues that we have been discussing right now,
> and its semantics is always referring to the "processing record" at hand.
> More specifically, we can think of processing a record a bit different:
>
> 1) the record traversed the topology from source to sink, it may be
> transformed into new object or even generate multiple new objects (think:
> branch) along the traversal. And the record context is referring to this
> processing record. Here the "lifetime" of the record lasts for the entire
> topology traversal and any new records of this traversal is treated as
> different transformed values of this record (this applies to join and
> aggregations as well).
>
> 2) the record being processed is wiped out in the first operator after the
> source, and NEW records are forwarded to downstream operators. I.e. each
> record only lives between two adjacent operators, once it reached the new
> operator it's lifetime has ended and new records are generated.
>
> I think in the past we have talked about Streams under both context, and we
> do not have a clear agreement. I agree that 2) is logically more
> understandable for users as it does not leak any internal implementation
> details (e.g. for stream-table joins, table record's traversal ends at the
> join operator as it is only be materialized, while stream record's
> traversal goes through the join operator to further down until sinks).
> However if we are going to interpret following 2) above then even for
> non-stateful operators we would not inherit record context. What we're
> discussing now, seems to infer a third semantics:
>
> 3) a record would traverse "through" one-to-one (non-stateful) operators,
> will "replicate" at one-to-many (non-stateful) operators (think: "mapValues"
> ) and will "end" at many-to-one (stateful) operators where NEW records
> will be generated and forwarded to the downstream operators.
>
> Just wanted to lay the ground for discussions so we are all on the same
> page before chatting more.
>
>
> Guozhang
On 11/6/17 1:41 PM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> Thanks a lot for correcting. It is a leftover from the past designs when
> punctuate() was not deprecated.
> I corrected.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeyhun
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:30 PM Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io>
> wrote:
>
>> I just re-read the KIP.
>>
>> One minor comment: we don't need to introduce any deprecated methods.
>> Thus, RichValueTransformer#punctuate can be removed completely instead
>> of introducing it as deprecated.
>>
>> Otherwise looks good to me.
>>
>> Thanks for being so patient!
>>
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>> On 11/1/17 9:16 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
>>> Jeyhun,
>>>
>>> I think I'm convinced to not do KAFKA-3907 in this KIP. We should think
>>> carefully if we should add this functionality to the DSL layer moving
>>> forward since from what we discovered working on it the conclusion is
>> that
>>> it would require revamping the public APIs quite a lot, and it's not
>> clear
>>> if it is a good trade-off than asking users to call process() instead.
>>>
>>>
>>> Guozhang
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:50 AM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jeyhun, thanks, looks good.
>>>> Do we need to remove the line that says:
>>>>
>>>> - on-demand commit() feature
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Damian
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 at 23:07 Jeyhun Karimov <je.kari...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I removed the 'commit()' feature, as we discussed. It simplified the
>>>>> overall design of KIP a lot.
>>>>> If it is ok, I would like to start a VOTE thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Jeyhun
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:28 PM Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io
>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks. I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but also we need a commit() method
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would just not provide `commit()` at DSL level and close the
>>>>>> corresponding Jira as "not a problem" or similar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/27/17 3:42 PM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. I agree that this is not the best way to
>>>> do.
>>>>> A
>>>>>>> bit of history behind this design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prior doing this, I tried to provide ProcessorContext itself as an
>>>>>> argument
>>>>>>> in Rich interfaces. However, we dont want to give users that
>>>>> flexibility
>>>>>>> and “power”. Moreover, ProcessorContext contains processor level
>>>>>>> information and not Record level info. The only thing we need ij
>>>>>>> ProcessorContext is commit() method.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, as far as I understood, we need recor context (offset, timestamp
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> etc) but also we need a commit() method ( we dont want to provide
>>>>>>> ProcessorContext as a parameter so users can use
>>>>>> ProcessorContext.commit()
>>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a result, I thought to “propagate” commit() call from
>>>> RecordContext
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> ProcessorContext() .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there is a misunderstanding in motvation/discussion of
>>>> KIP/included
>>>>>>> jiras please let me know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Jeyhun
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri 27. Oct 2017 at 12:39, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am personally still not convinced, that we should add `commit()`
>>>> at
>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @Guozhang: you created the original Jira. Can you elaborate a little
>>>>>>>> bit? Isn't requesting commits a low level API that should not be
>>>>> exposed
>>>>>>>> in the DSL? Just want to understand the motivation better. Why would
>>>>>>>> anybody that uses the DSL ever want to request a commit? To me,
>>>>>>>> requesting commits is useful if you manipulated state explicitly,
>>>> ie,
>>>>>>>> via Processor API.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, for the solution: it seem rather unnatural to me, that we add
>>>>>>>> `commit()` to `RecordContext` -- from my understanding,
>>>>> `RecordContext`
>>>>>>>> is an helper object that provide access to record meta data.
>>>>> Requesting
>>>>>>>> a commit is something quite different. Additionally, a commit does
>>>> not
>>>>>>>> commit a specific record but a `RecrodContext` is for a specific
>>>>> record.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To me, this does not seem to be a sound API design if we follow this
>>>>>> path.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/26/17 10:41 PM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your suggestions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have some comments, to make sure that there is no
>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Maybe we can deprecate the `commit()` in ProcessorContext, to
>>>>>> enforce
>>>>>>>>>> user to consolidate this call as
>>>>>>>>>> "processorContext.recordContext().commit()". And internal
>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> `ProcessorContext.commit()` in `ProcessorContextImpl` is also
>>>>> changed
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> this call.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - I think we should not deprecate `ProcessorContext.commit()`. The
>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>> intuition that we introduce `commit()` in `RecordContext` is that,
>>>>>>>>> `RecordContext` is the one which is provided in Rich interfaces. So
>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> user
>>>>>>>>> wants to commit, then there should be some method inside
>>>>>> `RecordContext`
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> do so. Internally, `RecordContext.commit()` calls
>>>>>>>>> `ProcessorContext.commit()` (see the last code snippet in
>>>> KIP-159):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @Override
>>>>>>>>> public void process(final K1 key, final V1 value) {
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> recordContext = new RecordContext() { //
>>>>>>>>> recordContext initialization is added in this KIP
>>>>>>>>> @Override
>>>>>>>>> public void commit() {
>>>>>>>>> context().commit();
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @Override
>>>>>>>>> public long offset() {
>>>>>>>>> return context().recordContext().offset();
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @Override
>>>>>>>>> public long timestamp() {
>>>>>>>>> return context().recordContext().timestamp();
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @Override
>>>>>>>>> public String topic() {
>>>>>>>>> return context().recordContext().topic();
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> @Override
>>>>>>>>> public int partition() {
>>>>>>>>> return context().recordContext().partition();
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, we cannot deprecate `ProcessorContext.commit()` in this case
>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Add the `task` reference to the impl class,
>>>>>> `ProcessorRecordContext`,
>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>> that it can implement the commit call itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Actually, I don't think that we need `commit()` in
>>>>>>>>> `ProcessorRecordContext`. The main intuition is to "transfer"
>>>>>>>>> `ProcessorContext.commit()` call to Rich interfaces, to support
>>>>>>>>> user-specific committing.
>>>>>>>>> To do so, we introduce `commit()` method in `RecordContext()` just
>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> call ProcessorContext.commit() inside. (see the above code snippet)
>>>>>>>>> So, in Rich interfaces, we are not dealing with
>>>>>> `ProcessorRecordContext`
>>>>>>>>> at all, and we leave all its methods as it is.
>>>>>>>>> In this KIP, we made `RecordContext` to be the parent class of
>>>>>>>>> `ProcessorRecordContext`, just because of they share quite amount
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> methods and it is logical to enable inheritance between those two.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. In the wiki page, the statement that "However, call to a
>>>> commit()
>>>>>>>> method,
>>>>>>>>>> is valid only within RecordContext interface (at least for now),
>>>> we
>>>>>>>> throw
>>>>>>>>>> an exception in ProcessorRecordContext.commit()." and the code
>>>>> snippet
>>>>>>>>>> below would need to be updated as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - I think above explanation covers this as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I want to gain some speed to this KIP, as it has gone though many
>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>> based on user/developer needs, both in
>>>>>>>> documentation-/implementation-wise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:41 AM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the information Jeyhun. I had also forgot about
>>>>> KAFKA-3907
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> this KIP..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thinking a bit more, I'm now inclined to go with what we agreed
>>>>>> before,
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> add the commit() call to `RecordContext`. A few minor tweaks on
>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>> implementation:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Maybe we can deprecate the `commit()` in ProcessorContext, to
>>>>>> enforce
>>>>>>>>>> user to consolidate this call as
>>>>>>>>>> "processorContext.recordContext().commit()". And internal
>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> `ProcessorContext.commit()` in `ProcessorContextImpl` is also
>>>>> changed
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> this call.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Add the `task` reference to the impl class,
>>>>>>>> `ProcessorRecordContext`, so
>>>>>>>>>> that it can implement the commit call itself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. In the wiki page, the statement that "However, call to a
>>>> commit()
>>>>>>>>>> method,
>>>>>>>>>> is valid only within RecordContext interface (at least for now),
>>>> we
>>>>>>>> throw
>>>>>>>>>> an exception in ProcessorRecordContext.commit()." and the code
>>>>> snippet
>>>>>>>>>> below would need to be updated as well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Matthias J. Sax <
>>>>>> matth...@confluent.io
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fair point. This is a long discussion and I totally forgot that
>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> discussed this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Seems I changed my opinion about including KAFKA-3907...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Happy to hear what others think.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/17 1:20 PM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is probably my bad, the discussion was a bit long in this
>>>>>> thread. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed the related issue in the related KIP discuss thread [1]
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> got
>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>> approval [2,3].
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I misunderstood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://search-hadoop.com/m/Kafka/uyzND19Asmg1GKKXT1?subj=
>>>>>>>>>>> Re+DISCUSS+KIP+159+Introducing+Rich+functions+to+Streams
>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://search-hadoop.com/m/Kafka/uyzND1kpct22GKKXT1?subj=
>>>>>>>>>>> Re+DISCUSS+KIP+159+Introducing+Rich+functions+to+Streams
>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://search-hadoop.com/m/Kafka/uyzND1G6TGIGKKXT1?subj=
>>>>>>>>>>> Re+DISCUSS+KIP+159+Introducing+Rich+functions+to+Streams
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 8:44 PM Matthias J. Sax <
>>>>>>>> matth...@confluent.io
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that https://issues.apache.org/
>>>> jira/browse/KAFKA-4125
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> main motivation for this KIP :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also think, that we should not expose the full
>>>> ProcessorContext
>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> DSL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, overall I am not even sure if we should fix KAFKA-3907 at
>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manual commits are something DSL users should not worry about
>>>> --
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one really needs this, an advanced user can still insert a
>>>> dummy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> `transform` to request a commit from there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/17 5:39 AM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The main intuition is to solve [1], which is part of this KIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you that this might not seem semantically correct
>>>>> as
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not committing record state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alternatively, we can remove commit() from RecordContext and
>>>> add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ProcessorContext (which has commit() method) as an extra
>>>>> argument
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface RichValueMapper<V, VR, K> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR apply(final V value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final K key,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final RecordContext recordContext);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can adopt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface RichValueMapper<V, VR, K> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR apply(final V value,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final K key,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final RecordContext recordContext,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final ProcessorContext processorContext);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, in this case, a user can get confused as
>>>>> ProcessorContext
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordContext share some methods with the same name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3907
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 3:19 AM Guozhang Wang <
>>>>> wangg...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding #6 above, I'm still not clear why we would need
>>>>>>>> `commit()`
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both ProcessorContext and RecordContext, could you elaborate
>>>> a
>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>>> more?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To me `commit()` is really a processor context not a record
>>>>>> context
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logically: when you call that function, it means we would
>>>>> commit
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the whole task up to this processed record, not only that
>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Jeyhun Karimov <
>>>>>>>>>> je.kari...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0. RichInitializer definition seems missing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest moving the key parameter in the RichValueXX and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RichReducer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the value parameters, as well as in the templates;
>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface RichValueJoiner<V1, V2, VR, K> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR apply(final V1 value1, final V2 value2, final K key,
>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordContext
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recordContext);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Some of the listed functions are not necessary since
>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> pairing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are being deprecated in 1.0 already:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <KR> KGroupedStream<KR, V> groupBy(final
>>>> RichKeyValueMapper<?
>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>> K,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super V, KR> selector,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Serde<KR>
>>>> keySerde,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Serde<V>
>>>> valSerde);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VT, VR> KStream<K, VR> leftJoin(final KTable<K, VT> table,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final RichValueJoiner<?
>>>>> super
>>>>>> K,
>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> V,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? super VT, ? extends VR> joiner,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Serde<K> keySerde,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Serde<V> valSerde);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Fixed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. For a few functions where we are adding three APIs for a
>>>>>> combo
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapper / joiner, or both initializer / aggregator, or
>>>> adder /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtractor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if we can just keep one that use "rich"
>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that we can have less overloads and let users who only
>>>>> want
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> access
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of them to just use dummy parameter declarations. For
>>>>>>>> example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <GK, GV, RV> KStream<K, RV> join(final GlobalKTable<GK, GV>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalKTable,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final RichKeyValueMapper<?
>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>> K, ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> V, ? extends GK> keyValueMapper,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final RichValueJoiner<?
>>>>> super
>>>>>> K,
>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> V,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? super GV, ? extends RV> joiner);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Agreed. Fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. For TimeWindowedKStream, I'm wondering why we do not make
>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Initializer also "rich" functions? I.e.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - It was a typo. Fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. We need to move "RecordContext" from
>>>>>> o.a.k.processor.internals
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o.a.k.processor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. I'm not clear why we want to move `commit()` from
>>>>>>>>>>> ProcessorContext
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordContext?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it makes sense logically and to reduce code
>>>>> maintenance
>>>>>>>>>>> (both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces have offset() timestamp() topic() partition()
>>>>>>>>>> methods), I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherit ProcessorContext from RecordContext.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we need commit() method both in ProcessorContext and
>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordContext
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I move commit() method to parent class (RecordContext).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Guozhang Wang <
>>>>>>>>>> wangg...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the updated KIP, here are my comments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0. RichInitializer definition seems missing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. I'd suggest moving the key parameter in the RichValueXX
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RichReducer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the value parameters, as well as in the templates;
>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public interface RichValueJoiner<V1, V2, VR, K> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR apply(final V1 value1, final V2 value2, final K key,
>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordContext
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recordContext);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My motivation is that for lambda expression in J8, users
>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care about the key but only the context, or vice versa, is
>>>>>> likely
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it as (value1, value2, dummy, context) -> ... than putting
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> dummy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beginning of the parameter list. Generally speaking we'd
>>>> like
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "necessary" parameters prior to optional ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Some of the listed functions are not necessary since
>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>> pairing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are being deprecated in 1.0 already:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <KR> KGroupedStream<KR, V> groupBy(final
>>>> RichKeyValueMapper<?
>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>> K,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super V, KR> selector,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Serde<KR>
>>>> keySerde,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Serde<V>
>>>> valSerde);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VT, VR> KStream<K, VR> leftJoin(final KTable<K, VT> table,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final RichValueJoiner<?
>>>>> super
>>>>>> K,
>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> V,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? super VT, ? extends VR> joiner,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Serde<K> keySerde,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Serde<V> valSerde);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. For a few functions where we are adding three APIs for a
>>>>>> combo
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapper / joiner, or both initializer / aggregator, or
>>>> adder /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtractor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if we can just keep one that use "rich"
>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that we can have less overloads and let users who only
>>>>> want
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> access
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of them to just use dummy parameter declarations. For
>>>>>>>> example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <GK, GV, RV> KStream<K, RV> join(final GlobalKTable<GK, GV>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> globalKTable,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final RichKeyValueMapper<?
>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>> K, ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> V, ? extends GK> keyValueMapper,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final RichValueJoiner<?
>>>>> super
>>>>>> K,
>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> V,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? super GV, ? extends RV> joiner);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VR> KTable<K, VR> aggregate(final RichInitializer<K, VR>
>>>>>>>>>>> initializer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final RichAggregator<? super
>>>> K,
>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>>>> V,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aggregator,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Materialized<K, VR,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KeyValueStore<Bytes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> byte[]>> materialized);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly for KGroupedTable, a bunch of aggregate() are
>>>>>>>> deprecated
>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not need to add its rich functions any more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. For TimeWindowedKStream, I'm wondering why we do not
>>>> make
>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Initializer also "rich" functions? I.e.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VR> KTable<Windowed<K>, VR> aggregate(final
>>>>>> RichInitializer<VR,
>>>>>>>>>> K>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initializer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>> RichAggregator<?
>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>> K,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super V, VR> aggregator);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VR> KTable<Windowed<K>, VR> aggregate(final
>>>>>> RichInitializer<VR,
>>>>>>>>>> K>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initializer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>> RichAggregator<?
>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>> K,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super V, VR> aggregator,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>> Materialized<K,
>>>>>> VR,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WindowStore<Bytes, byte[]>> materialized);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. We need to move "RecordContext" from
>>>>>> o.a.k.processor.internals
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o.a.k.processor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. I'm not clear why we want to move `commit()` from
>>>>>>>>>>> ProcessorContext
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RecordContext? Conceptually I think it would better staying
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ProcessorContext. Do you find this not doable in the
>>>> internal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementations?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Ted Yu <
>>>> yuzhih...@gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recordContext = new RecordContext() { //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recordContext
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initialization is added in this KIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This code snippet seems to be standard - would it make
>>>> sense
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> pull
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a (sample) RecordContext implementation ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Jeyhun Karimov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> je.kari...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments. I added a couple of comments in
>>>>> KIP
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarify
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some points.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bq. provides a hybrd solution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Typo in hybrid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - My bad. Thanks for the correction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice if you can name some Value operator as
>>>>>>>>>> examples.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I added the corresponding interface names to KIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VR> KTable<K, VR> aggregate(final Initializer<VR>
>>>>>> initializer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Aggregator<? super
>>>> K, ?
>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> V,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adder,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The adder doesn't need to be RichAggregator ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Exactly. However, there are 2 Aggregator-type arguments
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method. So, I had to overload all possible their Rich
>>>>>>>>>>> counterparts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // adder with non-rich, subtrctor is rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VR> KTable<K, VR> aggregate(final Initializer<VR>
>>>>>> initializer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Aggregator<? super K,
>>>> ?
>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>> V,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adder,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final RichAggregator<? super
>>>>> K,
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> V,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtractor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Materialized<K, VR,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KeyValueStore<Bytes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> byte[]>> materialized);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // adder withrich, subtrctor is non-rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VR> KTable<K, VR> aggregate(final Initializer<VR>
>>>>>> initializer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final RichAggregator<? super
>>>>> K,
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> V,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adder,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Aggregator<? super K,
>>>> ?
>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>> V,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtractor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Materialized<K, VR,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KeyValueStore<Bytes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> byte[]>> materialized);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // both adder and subtractor are rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VR> KTable<K, VR> aggregate(final Initializer<VR>
>>>>>> initializer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final RichAggregator<? super
>>>>> K,
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> V,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adder,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final RichAggregator<? super
>>>>> K,
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> V,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subtractor,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Materialized<K, VR,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KeyValueStore<Bytes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> byte[]>> materialized);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain a bit about the above implementation ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void commit () {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw new UnsupportedOperationException("commit()
>>>> is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this context");
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the exception going to be replaced with real code in
>>>>> the
>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - I added some comments both inside and outside the code
>>>>>>>>>> snippets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KIP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, for the code snippet above, we add
>>>> *commit()*
>>>>>>>>>> method
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *RecordContext* interface.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, we want *commit()* method to be used only for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *RecordContext*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances (at least for now), so we add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UnsupportedOperationException
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all classes/interfaces that extend/implement
>>>>> *RecordContext.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In general, 1) we make RecordContext publicly available
>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ProcessorContext, 2) initialize its instance within all
>>>>>>>>>> required
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Processors and 3) pass it as an argument to the related
>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inside Processors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:44 PM Ted Yu <
>>>>> yuzhih...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bq. provides a hybrd solution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Typo in hybrid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bq. accessing read-only keys within XXXValues operators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice if you can name some Value operator as
>>>>>>>>>> examples.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <VR> KTable<K, VR> aggregate(final Initializer<VR>
>>>>>>>> initializer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final Aggregator<? super
>>>> K, ?
>>>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> V,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VR>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adder,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The adder doesn't need to be RichAggregator ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public RecordContext recordContext() {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return this.recordContext();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain a bit about the above implementation ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void commit () {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throw new UnsupportedOperationException("commit()
>>>> is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this context");
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the exception going to be replaced with real code in
>>>>> the
>>>>>> PR
>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Jeyhun Karimov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> je.kari...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I updated the related KIP [1]. Please feel free to
>>>>> comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 159%3A+Introducing+Rich+functions+to+Streams
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:20 AM Jeyhun Karimov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> je.kari...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Damian,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the update. I working on it and will
>>>> provide
>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeyhun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:50 PM Damian Guy <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> damian....@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jeyhun,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All KIP-182 API PRs have now been merged. So you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 at 15:23 Jeyhun Karimov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> je.kari...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
