Thanks for the KIP Omkar. I think this is rather uncontroversial, and I also support this KIP. I think you can start a VOTE. People can still chime in on the discuss thread if they have any concerns.
-Matthias On 5/27/19 11:50 PM, Dongjin Lee wrote: > Hi Omkar, > > Looks good to me. Thanks! > > Is there anyone who has some comments about the KIP? > > Thanks, > Dongjin > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:24 PM omkar mestry <om.m.mes...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Dongjin, >> >> I have updated the KIP please have a look and provide feedback on it. >> >> KIP :- >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=115526545 >> >> Thanks & Regards >> Omkar Mestry >> >> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 6:25 PM Dongjin Lee <dong...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Omkar, >>> >>> Thanks for the KIP. However, discussion thread should include a link to >> the >>> KIP document. Since you omitted it, here is the link. >>> >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=115526545 >>> >>> As far as I understand, the point of the KIP is the current API can >> result >>> in inconsistency to should be deprecated and finally, removed. Right? >> Here >>> are some comments on the KIP. >>> >>> *1. Minor corrections* >>> >>> Since the KIP proposes deprecation of an API, not actually removing it, >> it >>> would be better to correct the following sentences: >>> >>> - "Therefore by removing the method put(key, value), we can prevent >>> inconsistency." → "Therefore by deprecating (and finally removing) the >>> method put(key, value), we can prevent inconsistency." >>> - "Also, there are tests which are needed to be updated after removal of >>> the specified method." → "Also, there are tests which are needed to be >>> updated after deprecation of the specified method." >>> >>> *2. About 'Motivation' section* >>> >>> I think the motivation section can be more clear by referring to the risk >>> of the current API. How do you think? >>> >>> "... Therefore by ..." >>> >>> → "... This constraint makes WindowStore error prone. Therefore by ..." >>> >>> *3. About 'Rejected Alternatives' section* >>> >>> This sections should state why these alternatives were rejected. How >> about >>> this? >>> >>> "Since this API can be called by the user[^1][^2], updating the method >> can >>> break the code; By this reason, this approach is not feasible." >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dongjin >>> >>> [^1]: >>> >>> >> https://kafka.apache.org/22/javadoc/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/Stores.html >>> [^2]: >>> >>> >> https://kafka.apache.org/22/javadoc/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/WindowStore.html >>> >>> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 3:18 PM omkar mestry <om.m.mes...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> We propose to deprecate the WindowStore#put(key, value), as it does not >>>> have a timestamp as a parameter. The window store requires a timestamp >> to >>>> map the key to a window frame. This method uses the current record >>>> timestamp(as specified in the description of the method). There is a >>> method >>>> present with a timestamp as a parameter which can be used instead. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Dongjin Lee* >>> >>> *A hitchhiker in the mathematical world.* >>> *github: <http://goog_969573159/>github.com/dongjinleekr >>> <https://github.com/dongjinleekr>linkedin: >> kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr >>> <https://kr.linkedin.com/in/dongjinleekr>speakerdeck: >>> speakerdeck.com/dongjin >>> <https://speakerdeck.com/dongjin>* >>> >> > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
