agavra commented on code in PR #18342: URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/18342#discussion_r1915851802
########## streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/kstream/internals/graph/GracePeriodGraphNode.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more + * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with + * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. + * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0 + * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with + * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software + * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, + * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. + * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and + * limitations under the License. + */ + +package org.apache.kafka.streams.kstream.internals.graph; + +/** + * Represents a stateful {@link ProcessorGraphNode} where a semantic grace period is defined for the processor + * and its state. + */ +public class GracePeriodGraphNode<K, V> extends ProcessorGraphNode<K, V> { Review Comment: I wonder if it makes sense to add something directly to `ProcessorGraphNode` such as `ProcessorGraphNode#getWindowInformation` that returns an `Optional<WindowInformation>` that contains grace period. That removes the `instanceof GracePeriodGraphNode` check, at the cost of adding something empty to all the other nodes. I'm ambivalent as either approach works for me. -- 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]
