1. Makes sense; let me propose something 2. That's not testing-only. The goal is to use the same API to access the time in deployment and testing environments. The major driver is System.currentTimeMillis(), which a) cannot be used in tests b) could go in specific cases back c) is not compatible with punctuator call. The idea is that we could access clock using uniform API. For completness we should have same API for system and stream time.
3. There aren't that many subclasses. Two important ones are ProcessorContextImpl and MockProcessorContext (and third one: ForwardingDisableProcessorContext). If given implementation does not support schedule() call, there is no reason to support clock access. The default implementation should just throw UnsupportedOperationException just to prevent from compilation errors in possible subclasses. On 2020/07/01 02:24:43, Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Will for the KIP. A couple questions and suggestions: > > 1. I think for new APIs to make most sense, we should add a minimal example > demonstrating how it could be useful to structure unit tests w/o the new > APIs. > 2. If this is a testing-only feature, could we only add it > to MockProcessorContext? > 3. Regarding the API, since this will be added to the ProcessorContext with > many subclasses, does it make sense to provide default implementations as > well? > > Boyang > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:56 PM William Bottrell <bottre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks, John! I made the change. How much longer should I let there be > > discussion before starting a VOTE? > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 6:50 AM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Thanks, Will, > > > > > > That looks good to me. I would only add "cached" or something > > > to indicate that it wouldn't just transparently look up the current > > > System.currentTimeMillis every time. > > > > > > For example: > > > /** > > > * Returns current cached wall-clock system timestamp in milliseconds. > > > * > > > * @return the current cached wall-clock system timestamp in milliseconds > > > */ > > > long currentSystemTimeMs(); > > > > > > I don't want to give specific information about _when_ exactly the > > > timestamp cache will be updated, so that we can adjust it in the > > > future, but it does seem important to make people aware that they > > > won't see the timestamp advance during the execution of > > > Processor.process(), for example. > > > > > > With that modification, I'll be +1 on this proposal. > > > > > > Thanks again for the KIP! > > > -John > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020, at 02:32, William Bottrell wrote: > > > > Thanks, John! I appreciate you adjusting my lingo. I made the change to > > > the > > > > KIP. I will add the note about system time to the javadoc. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 6:52 PM John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Will, > > > > > > > > > > This proposal looks good to me overall. Thanks for the contribution! > > > > > > > > > > Just a couple of minor notes: > > > > > > > > > > The system time method would return a cached timestamp that Streams > > > looks > > > > > up once when it starts processing a record. This may be confusing, so > > > it > > > > > might be good to state it in the javadoc. > > > > > > > > > > I thought the javadoc for the stream time might be a bit confusing. > > We > > > > > normally talk about “Tasks” not “partition groups” in the public api. > > > Maybe > > > > > just saying that it’s “the maximum timestamp of any record yet > > > processed by > > > > > the task” would be both high level and accurate. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again! > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020, at 02:10, William Bottrell wrote: > > > > > > Thanks, Bruno. I updated the KIP, so hopefully it makes more sense. > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > to Matthias J. Sax and Piotr Smolinski for helping with details. > > > > > > > > > > > > I welcome more feedback. Let me know if something doesn't make > > sense > > > or I > > > > > > need to provide more detail. Also, feel free to enlighten me. > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 1:11 PM Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Will, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the KIP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Could you elaborate a bit more on the motivation in the KIP? > > An > > > > > > > example would make the motivation clearer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. In section "Proposed Changes" you do not need to show the > > > > > > > implementation and describe internals. A description of the > > > expected > > > > > > > behavior of the newly added methods should suffice. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. In "Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan" you should > > > > > > > state that the change is backward compatible because the two > > > methods > > > > > > > will be added and no other method will be changed or removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:06 AM William Bottrell < > > > bottre...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add currentSystemTimeMs and currentStreamTimeMs to > > > ProcessorContext > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-622%3A+Add+currentSystemTimeMs+and+currentStreamTimeMs+to+ProcessorContext > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am extremely new to Kafka, but thank you to John Roesler and > > > > > Matthias > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > Sax for pointing me in the right direction. I accept any and > > all > > > > > > > feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
