Thanks, Vinoth and John for making the last minute improvements. I have gone
through the PR and looks good to me.
On Thursday, 16 January, 2020, 12:42:09 am IST, Guozhang Wang
wrote:
Thanks for the update of the PR John! I have taken a look at 7962 and it
looks good to me overall.
Thanks for the update of the PR John! I have taken a look at 7962 and it
looks good to me overall.
Guozhang
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:35 AM John Roesler wrote:
> Hello again all,
>
> I had a bit of inspiration last night and realized that it's not necessary
> (and maybe even inappropriate)
Hello again all,
I had a bit of inspiration last night and realized that it's not necessary
(and maybe even inappropriate) for StreamThreadStateStoreProvider
and WrappingStoreProvider to implement the public StateStoreProvider interface.
By breaking this dependency, I was able to implement the
Thanks. SGTM.
-Matthias
On 1/14/20 4:52 PM, John Roesler wrote:
> Hey Matthias,
>
> Thanks for taking a look! I felt a little uneasy about it, but didn’t think
> about the case you pointed out. Throwing an exception would indeed be safer.
>
> Given a choice between throwing in the default
Hey Matthias,
Thanks for taking a look! I felt a little uneasy about it, but didn’t think
about the case you pointed out. Throwing an exception would indeed be safer.
Given a choice between throwing in the default method or defining a new
interface and throwing if the wrong interface is
Thanks for the PR. That helps a lot.
I actually do have a concern: the proposed default method, would disable
the new feature to allow querying an active task during restore
automatically. Hence, if a user has an existing custom store type, and
would use the new
KafkaStreams.store(..., true)
Hi again all,
I've sent a PR including this new option, and while implementing it, I
realized we also have to make a (source-compatible) addition to the
QueryableStoreType interface, so that the IQ store wrapper can pass the
flag down to the composite store provider.
See
Thanks for calling this out, Matthias. You're correct that this looks like a
harmful behavioral change. I'm fine with adding the new overload you
mentioned, just a simple boolean flag to enable the new behavior.
I'd actually propose that we call this flag "queryStaleData", with a default
of
During the discussion of KIP-216
(https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-216%3A+IQ+should+throw+different+exceptions+for+different+errors)
we encountered that KIP-535 introduces a behavior change that is not
backward compatible, hence, I would like to request a small change.
Thanks, everyone involved!
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 7:51 AM John Roesler wrote:
> Thanks to you, also, Navinder!
>
> Looking forward to getting this feature in.
> -John
>
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 11:34 PM Navinder Brar
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > With 4 binding +1 votes from Guozhang
Thanks to you, also, Navinder!
Looking forward to getting this feature in.
-John
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 11:34 PM Navinder Brar
wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> With 4 binding +1 votes from Guozhang Wang, Matthias J. Sax, Bill Bejeck,
> and John Roesler, the vote passes.
> Thanks Guozhang, Matthias,
Hello all,
With 4 binding +1 votes from Guozhang Wang, Matthias J. Sax, Bill Bejeck,
and John Roesler, the vote passes.
Thanks Guozhang, Matthias, Bill, John, Sophie for the healthy discussions and
Vinoth for all the help on this KIP.
Best,
Navinder
On Friday, 15 November, 2019, 11:32:31
I'm +1 (binding) as well.
Thanks,
-John
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 6:20 AM Bill Bejeck wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 1:11 AM Matthias J. Sax
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> >
> > On 11/14/19 3:48 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > +1 (binding), thanks for the KIP!
> > >
> > >
+1 (binding)
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 1:11 AM Matthias J. Sax
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
>
> On 11/14/19 3:48 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > +1 (binding), thanks for the KIP!
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 4:38 AM Navinder Brar
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I'd like to
+1 (binding)
On 11/14/19 3:48 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> +1 (binding), thanks for the KIP!
>
> Guozhang
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 4:38 AM Navinder Brar
> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I'd like to propose a vote for serving interactive queries during
>> Rebalancing, as it is a big deal for
+1 (binding), thanks for the KIP!
Guozhang
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 4:38 AM Navinder Brar
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'd like to propose a vote for serving interactive queries during
> Rebalancing, as it is a big deal for applications looking for high
> availability. With this change, users will
Hello all,
I'd like to propose a vote for serving interactive queries during Rebalancing,
as it is a big deal for applications looking for high availability. With this
change, users will have control over the tradeoff between consistency and
availability during serving.
The full KIP is
17 matches
Mail list logo