Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Dear community, I want to inform you that because of the case [1] we needed to add an extra overloaded method to KIP: *KStreamBuilder.globalTable(final Serde keySerde, final Serde valSerde, final String topic, final String storeName) * [1]

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

THank you, Jeyhun! Will made a final pass on the PR soon. Guozhang On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Michael Noll wrote: > Thanks for your work and for driving this, Jeyhun! :-) > > -Michael > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Jeyhun Karimov >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Thanks for your work and for driving this, Jeyhun! :-) -Michael On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote: > Dear all, > > I am closing this vote now. The KIP got accepted with > > +3 binding (Guozhang, Ewen, Gwen) > > Thanks all (especially for Mathias) for

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Dear all, I am closing this vote now. The KIP got accepted with +3 binding (Guozhang, Ewen, Gwen) Thanks all (especially for Mathias) for guiding me throughout my first KIP. Cheers, Jeyhun On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:32 PM Thomas Becker wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

+1 (non-binding) On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 08:59 +, Jeyhun Karimov wrote: > Dear community, > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-123: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6871 > 4788 > > > Cheers, > Jeyhun -- Tommy Becker Senior Software Engineer O

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

+1. Thanks for the KIP! On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote: > Dear community, > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-123: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=68714788 > > > Cheers, > Jeyhun > -- > -Cheers > > Jeyhun >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

+1 (binding) Left a few more comments in the DISCUSS thread, but nothing that would affect voting. Might also want to note somewhere in the KIP wiki that this interacts with KIP-120. Not critical, but it might help someone reading the KIPs for 0.11 figure out that they should actually be using

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Thanks for the comments Matthias. I updated the KIP and PR. Cheers, Jeyhun On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 8:34 AM Eno Thereska wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thanks > Eno > > > On 24 Mar 2017, at 03:37, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > > > Thanks Jeyhun. > > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

+1 (non-binding) Thanks Eno > On 24 Mar 2017, at 03:37, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > Thanks Jeyhun. > > Can you also update the KIP accordingly. It must contain all changes to > public API. Thus, list all parameters that get deprecated and newly > added. And add a

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Thanks Jeyhun. Can you also update the KIP accordingly. It must contain all changes to public API. Thus, list all parameters that get deprecated and newly added. And add a sentence about backward compatibility. -Matthias On 3/23/17 3:16 AM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote: > Sorry for a super late

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Sorry for a super late update. I made an update on related PR. Cheers, Jeyhun On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:09 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > Jeyhun, > > Could you update the status of this KIP since it has been some time since > the last vote? > > I'm +1 besides the minor comments

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Jeyhun, Could you update the status of this KIP since it has been some time since the last vote? I'm +1 besides the minor comments mentioned above. Guozhang On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Jeyhun Karimov wrote: > Sorry I was late. I will update javadocs in related

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Sorry I was late. I will update javadocs in related methods to emphasize that TimestampExtractor is stateless. Cheers, Jeyhun On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 8:17 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > 1) Sounds good. > > 2) Yeah what I meant is to emphasize that TimestampExtractor to be >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

1) Sounds good. 2) Yeah what I meant is to emphasize that TimestampExtractor to be stateless in the docs somewhere. Guozhang On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > Guozhang, > > about renaming the config parameters. I like this idea, but want to >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Guozhang, about renaming the config parameters. I like this idea, but want to point out, that this change should be done in a backward compatible way. Thus, we need to keep (and only deprecate) the current parameter names. I am not sure about (2)? What do you worry about? Using a "stateful

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Jeyhun, Thanks for proposing this KIP! And sorry for getting late in the discussion. I have a general suggestion not directly related to this KIP and a couple of comments for this KIP here: I agree with Mathieu's observation, partly because we are now having lots of overloaded functions both in

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

+1 (non-binding) Thanks for the KIP! On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Bill Bejeck wrote: > +1 > > Thanks > Bill > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Eno Thereska > wrote: > > > +1 (non binding). > > > > Thanks > > Eno > > > On 28 Feb 2017, at 17:22,

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

+1 Thanks Bill On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:06 AM, Eno Thereska wrote: > +1 (non binding). > > Thanks > Eno > > On 28 Feb 2017, at 17:22, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > Thanks a lot for the KIP! > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > On 2/28/17

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

+1 (non binding). Thanks Eno > On 28 Feb 2017, at 17:22, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > +1 > > Thanks a lot for the KIP! > > -Matthias > > > On 2/28/17 1:35 AM, Damian Guy wrote: >> Thanks for the KIP Jeyhun! >> >> +1 >> >> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 08:59 Jeyhun Karimov

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

+1 Thanks a lot for the KIP! -Matthias On 2/28/17 1:35 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > Thanks for the KIP Jeyhun! > > +1 > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 08:59 Jeyhun Karimov wrote: > >> Dear community, >> >> I'd like to start the vote for KIP-123: >>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

That's ok, that was my fault for looking at this thread late. We can leave the vote thread as is and simultaneously answer any remaining questions on the discuss thread. Thanks Eno > On 28 Feb 2017, at 12:55, Michael Noll wrote: > > Thanks, Jeyhun! > > I observed that

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Thanks, Jeyhun! I observed that there is still on ongoing conversation in the DISCUSS thread, so perhaps this voting thread was started a bit too early? -Michael On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > Thanks for the KIP Jeyhun! > > +1 > > On Tue, 28 Feb

Re: [VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Thanks for the KIP Jeyhun! +1 On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 08:59 Jeyhun Karimov wrote: > Dear community, > > I'd like to start the vote for KIP-123: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=68714788 > > > Cheers, > Jeyhun > -- > -Cheers > > Jeyhun >

[VOTE] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor

Dear community, I'd like to start the vote for KIP-123: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=68714788 Cheers, Jeyhun -- -Cheers Jeyhun