Hi again, all,
Casey Green pointed out that we overlooked the scala api when we added
Suppress. He was kind enough to send
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6314 to correct this, and we also
updated the KIP. Since it's essentially just copying the existing Java API
over to Scala, we didn't
Hi John,
Thanks for the update, I'm +1 on changes and my +1 vote stands.
-Bill
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 4:19 PM John Roesler wrote:
> Hi all, sorry to do this again, but during review of the code to add the
> metrics proposed in this KIP, the reviewers and I noticed some
> inconsistencies and
Hi all, sorry to do this again, but during review of the code to add the
metrics proposed in this KIP, the reviewers and I noticed some
inconsistencies and drawbacks of the metrics I proposed in the KIP.
Here's the diff:
Update: Here's a link to the documented eviction behavior:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-328%3A+Ability+to+suppress+updates+for+KTables#KIP-328:AbilitytosuppressupdatesforKTables-BufferEvictionBehavior(akaSuppressEmitBehavior)
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:12 AM John Roesler
Hello again, all,
During review, we realized that there is a relationship between this
(KIP-328) and KIP-372.
KIP-372 proposed to allow naming *all* internal topics, and KIP-328 adds a
new internal topic (the changelog for the suppression buffer).
However, we didn't consider this relationship
Hello all,
During review of https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5567 for KIP-328,
the reviewers raised many good suggestions for the API.
The basic design of the suppress operation remains the same, but the
config object is (in my opinion) far more ergonomic with their suggestions.
I have
It seems nobody has any objections against the change.
That's for the KIP improvement. I'll go ahead and merge the PR.
-Matthias
On 8/21/18 2:44 PM, John Roesler wrote:
> Hello again, all,
>
> I belatedly had a better idea for adding grace period to the Windows class
> hierarchy (TimeWindows,
Hello again, all,
I belatedly had a better idea for adding grace period to the Windows class
hierarchy (TimeWindows, UnlimitedWindows, JoinWindows). Instead of
providing the grace-setter in the abstract class and having to retract it
in UnlimitedWindows, I've made the getter abstract method in
Hey all,
I just wanted to let you know that a few small issues surfaced during
implementation and review. I've updated the KIP. Here's the diff:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=87295409=9=8
Basically:
* the metrics named "*-event-*" are inconsistent
Thanks everyone, KIP-328 has passed with 3 binding votes (Guozhang, Damian,
and Matthias) and 3 non-binding (Ted, Bill, and me).
Thanks for your time,
-John
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 6:35 PM Matthias J. Sax
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Thanks for the KIP.
>
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 8/3/18 12:52 AM,
+1 (binding)
Thanks for the KIP.
-Matthias
On 8/3/18 12:52 AM, Damian Guy wrote:
> Thanks John! +1
>
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 at 23:58 Guozhang Wang wrote:
>
>> Yes, the addendum lgtm as well. Thanks!
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:34 PM, John Roesler wrote:
>>
>>> Another thing that came up
Thanks John! +1
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 at 23:58 Guozhang Wang wrote:
> Yes, the addendum lgtm as well. Thanks!
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:34 PM, John Roesler wrote:
>
> > Another thing that came up after I started working on an implementation
> is
> > that in addition to deprecating
Yes, the addendum lgtm as well. Thanks!
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:34 PM, John Roesler wrote:
> Another thing that came up after I started working on an implementation is
> that in addition to deprecating "retention" from the Windows interface, we
> also need to deprecate "segmentInterval", for
Another thing that came up after I started working on an implementation is
that in addition to deprecating "retention" from the Windows interface, we
also need to deprecate "segmentInterval", for the same reasons. I simply
overlooked it previously. I've updated the KIP accordingly.
Hopefully,
Thanks Guozhang,
Thanks for that catch. to clarify, currently, events are "late" only when
they are older than the retention period. Currently, we detect this in the
processor and record it as a "skipped-record". We then do not attempt to
store the event in the window store. If a user provided a
Hi John,
Thanks for the updated KIP, +1 from me, and one minor suggestion:
Following your suggestion of the differentiation of `skipped-records` v.s.
`late-event-drop`, we should probably consider moving the scenarios where
records got ignored due the window not being available any more in
Thanks for the KIP!
+1
-Bill
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:42 PM Ted Yu wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:46 AM John Roesler wrote:
>
> > Hello devs,
> >
> > The discussion of KIP-328 has gone some time with no new comments, so I
> am
> > calling for a vote!
> >
> > Here's the KIP:
+1
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:46 AM John Roesler wrote:
> Hello devs,
>
> The discussion of KIP-328 has gone some time with no new comments, so I am
> calling for a vote!
>
> Here's the KIP: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/sQU0BQ
>
> The basic idea is to provide:
> * more usable control
Hello devs,
The discussion of KIP-328 has gone some time with no new comments, so I am
calling for a vote!
Here's the KIP: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/sQU0BQ
The basic idea is to provide:
* more usable control over update rate (vs the current state store caches)
* the
19 matches
Mail list logo
