shunping commented on code in PR #31092:
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/31092#discussion_r1586453290
##########
model/fn-execution/src/main/proto/org/apache/beam/model/fn_execution/v1/beam_fn_api.proto:
##########
@@ -1063,6 +1087,10 @@ message StateAppendRequest {
// Represents a part of a logical byte stream. Elements within
// the logical byte stream are encoded in the nested context and
// multiple append requests are concatenated together.
+ // For OrderedListState, elements of TimeStampedValue<T> should be encoded
+ // with TimestampedValueCoder.of(LengthPrefixCoder.of(Coder<T>)), so that
+ // the request handler knows how to decode timestamps from the data without
Review Comment:
This sounds a bit not counter-intuitive, but TimestampedValue is not
equivalent to KV<VarInt64, LP<value>>. Particularly, TimestampedValueCoder
encodes/and decodes the value first and then timestamp.
https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/413af1289373079319ba77b3f233751fbdfc3bc9/sdks/java/core/src/main/java/org/apache/beam/sdk/values/TimestampedValue.java#L110-L111
But KV<VarInt64, LP<value>> does that in an opposite order. In order to
maintain the compatibility of these two coders and makes the code easier, how
about we use coder of KV<LP<value>, VarInt64>> instead?
@robertwb
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
