[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-12213?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17266335#comment-17266335 ]
Matthias J. Sax commented on KAFKA-12213: ----------------------------------------- [~MonCalamari] – thanks for creating this ticket, however, this is a public API change and needs to be backed by a KIP (cf [https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals]) Btw: there is already KIP-149 ([https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-149%3A+Enabling+key+access+in+ValueTransformer%2C+ValueMapper%2C+and+ValueJoiner|https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-149%3A+Enabling+key+access+in+ValueTransformer%2C+ValueMapper%2C+and+ValueJoiner)]) and KIP-159 ([https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-159%3A+Introducing+Rich+functions+to+Streams]) that both overlaps with your request and there are a few related tickets: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4125, _KAFKA-4218, KAFKA-4726, KAFKA-3745, KAFKA-7842, KAFKA-7843_ I would need to catchup on the status of both KIP – there was not work on if for a long time... So we would need to re-evaluate the status of KIP-149 and KIP-159 first and than decide if the update one of the KIP, of your PR would actually contributes to the KIP-149 was was already approved or if we want to move forward with KIP-159 that was not approved yet. > Kafka Streams aggregation Initializer to accept record key > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: KAFKA-12213 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-12213 > Project: Kafka > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: streams > Reporter: Piotr Fras > Assignee: Piotr Fras > Priority: Minor > Labels: needs-kip > > Sometimes Kafka record key contains useful information for creating a zero > object in aggregation Initializer. This feature is to add kafka record key to > Initializer. > There were two approaches I considered to implement this feature, one > respecting backwards compatibility for internal and external APIs and the > other one which is not. I chose the latter one as it was more strait-forward. > We may want to validate this approach tho. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)