Hi Mark,

Thanks for the feedback! Yet, this thread appears to be about a slightly
different use case - a web hook event listener (which call external
consumers over HTTP) [5084]

By all means, please feel free to post specific comments about the outgoing
payload format in [5084].

Cheers,
Dmitri.

[5084] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5084

On Wed, Nov 11, 2026 at 4:12 AM zzcgumk via dev <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>          This thread ended up in my spam for some reason so sorry for the
> late input. I worked on the Kafka extension. The data included in the Kafka
> payload was deliberately a super set of the CloudWatch payload. The
> ultimate goal was to have a single mapper producing the same event JSON for
> all publishers (sorry, I did not get a chance to do this) so this all looks
> good to me.
>
> As a consumer of these events will the proposed REST Events API [1], [2]
> provide similar payloads -  ie it would be nice to be able to flip between
> Kafka and REST easily.
>
> cheers
> Mark
> [1] https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12584
> [2] https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/5989
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 3:23 PM vignesh a <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The mapper [1] is on main.
> >
> > I've rebased the webhook listener [2] onto it. The POST body is the
> > shared envelope, and the delivery time goes in the
> > X-Polaris-Delivery-Time header. [2] is the first consumer of the
> > mapper and the next PR to land.
> >
> > Quick recap on Kafka and CloudWatch from this thread:
> >
> > - Kafka already ships a flat payload in 1.7 / 1.8, so that listener
> >   stays on the current mapper for now. The follow-up is a
> >   per-listener format flag: flat payload stays the default and the
> >   shared envelope is opt-in, so existing consumers keep working.
> >
> > - CloudWatch moves to the same envelope after the webhook listener.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > *Vignesh*
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5717
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/5084
> >
>

Reply via email to