kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eno Thereska <eno.there...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-123: Allow per stream/table timestamp extractor
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:40:02 GMT
Hi Jeyhun,

I mean something slightly different. In your motivation you say "joining multiple streams/tables
that require different timestamp extraction methods". I wan to understand the scope of this.
Is it allowed to have a stream that uses wallclock time join a stream that uses event time?
(It would be good to give some examples in the motivation about scenarios you envision). If
the join is not allowed, how do you prevent that join from happening? Do you throw an exception?

Thanks
Eno


> On 28 Feb 2017, at 10:04, Jeyhun Karimov <je.karimov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Eno,
> 
> Thanks for feedback. I think you mean [1]. In this KIP we do not consider
> the situations you mentioned. So, either we can extend the KIP and solve
> mentioned issues  or submit 2 PRs incrementally.
> 
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4785
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jeyhun
> 
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:41 AM Eno Thereska <eno.thereska@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jeyhun,
>> 
>> Thanks for the KIP, sorry I'm coming a bit late to the discussion.
>> 
>> One thing I'd like to understand is whether we can avoid situations where
>> the user is mixing different times (event time vs. wallclock time) in their
>> processing inadvertently. Before this KIP, all the relevant topics have one
>> time stamp extractor so that issue does not come up.
>> 
>> What will be the behavior if times mismatch, e.g., for joins?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Eno
>> 
>>> On 22 Feb 2017, at 09:21, Jeyhun Karimov <je.karimov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear community,
>>> 
>>> I would like to get further feedbacks on this KIP (if any).
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Jeyhun
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:36 AM Matthias J. Sax <matthias@confluent.io>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Mathieu,
>>>> 
>>>> I personally agree with your observation, and we have plans to submit a
>>>> KIP like this. If you want to drive this discussion feel free to start
>>>> the KIP by yourself!
>>>> 
>>>> Having said that, for this KIP we might want to focus the discussion the
>>>> the actual feature that gets added: allowing to specify different
>>>> TS-Extractor for different inputs.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -Matthias
>>>> 
>>>> On 2/14/17 4:54 PM, Mathieu Fenniak wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jeyhun,
>>>>> 
>>>>> This KIP might not be the appropriate time, but my first thought
>> reading
>>>> it
>>>>> is that it might make sense to introduce a builder-style API rather
>> than
>>>>> adding a mix of new method overloads with independent optional
>>>> parameters.
>>>>> :-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> eg. stream(), table(), globalTable(), addSource(), could all accept a
>>>>> "TopicReference" parameter that can be built like:
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> TopicReference("my-topic").keySerde(...).valueSerde(...).autoOffsetReset(...).timestampExtractor(...).build().
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mathieu
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Jeyhun Karimov <je.karimov@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear community,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I want to share the KIP-123 [1] which is based on issue KAFKA-4144
>> [2].
>>>> You
>>>>>> can check the PR in [3].
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would like to get your comments.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=68714788
>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4144
>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/2466
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Jeyhun
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> -Cheers
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jeyhun
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>> -Cheers
>>> 
>>> Jeyhun
>> 
>> --
> -Cheers
> 
> Jeyhun


Mime
View raw message