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 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 make the implementation
simpler, how about we explicitly define the use of `KV<LP<value>, VarInt64>>`
coder 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]
