Re: KIP-121 [Discuss]: Add KStream peek method

Yes, thank you everyone for your input! I will incorporate the latest round of test revisions and submit a VOTE thread later today :) > On Feb 8, 2017, at 10:48 AM, Eno Thereska wrote: > > Steven, > > Sounds like we can start a VOTE thread on this? Is the KIP up to

Re: KIP-121 [Discuss]: Add KStream peek method

Steven, Sounds like we can start a VOTE thread on this? Is the KIP up to date with all the latest comments? Thanks Eno > On 8 Feb 2017, at 18:05, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > I like this idea. But to get clean and concise PRs, I would prefer to > have a JIRA and extra PR

Re: KIP-121 [Discuss]: Add KStream peek method

Far better! Thank you! On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Steven Schlansker wrote: > Thanks for the feedback. I improved the javadoc a bit, do you like it better? > > /** > * Perform an action on each record of {@code KStream}. > * This is a stateless

Re: KIP-121 [Discuss]: Add KStream peek method

Thanks for the feedback. I improved the javadoc a bit, do you like it better? /** * Perform an action on each record of {@code KStream}. * This is a stateless record-by-record operation (cf. {@link #process(ProcessorSupplier, String...)}). * * Peek is a non-terminal

Re: KIP-121 [Discuss]: Add KStream peek method

Many thanks for the KIP and the PR, Steven! My opinion, too, is that we should consider including this. One thing that I would like to see clarified is the difference between the proposed peek() and existing functions map() and foreach(), for instance. My understanding (see also the Java 8 links

Re: KIP-121 [Discuss]: Add KStream peek method

Hi Steven, Thanks for the KIP. I think this is a worthy addition to the API. Thanks, Damian On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 at 09:30 Eno Thereska wrote: > Hi, > > I like the proposal, thank you. I have found it frustrating myself not to > be able to understand simple things, like

Re: KIP-121 [Discuss]: Add KStream peek method

Hi, I like the proposal, thank you. I have found it frustrating myself not to be able to understand simple things, like how many records have been currently processed. The peek method would allow those kinds of diagnostics and debugging. Gwen, it is possible to do this with the existing

Re: KIP-121 [Discuss]: Add KStream peek method

I've read the wiki and am unclear about the proposal. Can you provide something like a Javadoc for peek()? What would this method do? Also, forgive me if I'm missing an important point here, but can't I put the println statement in a map()? On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Matthias J. Sax

Re: KIP-121 [Discuss]: Add KStream peek method

Steven, Thanks for your KIP. I move this discussion to dev mailing list -- KIPs need to be discussed there (and can be cc'ed to user list). Can you also add the KIP to the table "KIPs under discussion":