Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores

Thanks to all for voting. So I consider KIP-968 as accepted. Cheers, Alieh On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 5:22 PM Matthias J. Sax wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On 11/21/23 4:52 AM, Lucas Brutschy wrote: > > Hi Alieh, > > > > thanks for the KIP! > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > Lucas > > > > On Tue, Nov 21,

Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores

+1 (binding) On 11/21/23 4:52 AM, Lucas Brutschy wrote: Hi Alieh, thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding) Lucas On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 11:26 AM Alieh Saeedi wrote: Thanks, Matthias; I changed it to `ANY` which is the shortest and not misleading. Cheers, Alieh On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:42 PM

Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores

Hi Alieh, thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding) Lucas On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 11:26 AM Alieh Saeedi wrote: > > Thanks, Matthias; I changed it to `ANY` which is the shortest and not > misleading. > > Cheers, > Alieh > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:42 PM Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > > Adding an enum is

Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores

Thanks, Matthias; I changed it to `ANY` which is the shortest and not misleading. Cheers, Alieh On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 7:42 PM Matthias J. Sax wrote: > Adding an enum is a good idea! > > Wondering if `UNORDERED` is the best name? Want to avoid bike shedding, > just asking. > > We could also

Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores

Adding an enum is a good idea! Wondering if `UNORDERED` is the best name? Want to avoid bike shedding, just asking. We could also use `UNDEFINED` / `UNSPECIFIED` / `NONE` / `ANY` ? In the end, the result _might_ be ordered, we just don't guarantee any order. -Matthias On 11/20/23 9:17

Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores

Hi all, I added the public enum `ResultOrder` to the KIP which helps with keeping three values (unordered, ascending, and descending) for the query results. Therefore the method `isAscending()` is changed to `resultOrder()` which returns either the user specified result order or `unorderd`.

Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores

Thank you, Guozhag and Bruno, for reviewing the KIP and reading the whole discussion thread. I appreciate your help:) The KIP is now corrected and updated. Cheers, Alieh On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:43 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: > Thanks Alieh, > > I am +1 (binding). > > However, although we agreed

Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores

Thanks Alieh, I am +1 (binding). However, although we agreed on not specifying an order of the results by default, there is still the following sentence in the KIP: "The order of the returned records is by default ascending by timestamp. The method withDescendingTimestamps() can reverse

Re: [VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores

Thanks Alieh, I read through the wiki page and the DISCUSS thread, all LGTM except a minor thing in javadoc: "The query returns the records with a global ascending order of keys. The records with the same key are ordered based on their insertion timestamp in ascending order. Both the global and

[VOTE] KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores

Hi all, Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening the voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. Cheers, Alieh