kafka-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-358: Migrate Streams API to Duration instead of long ms times
Date Wed, 05 Sep 2018 07:25:04 GMT
Hello, Guys.

I've started a VOTE [1], but seems commiters have no chance to look at KIP for now.

Can you tell me, is it OK?
Should I wait for feedback? For how long?

Or something in KIP should be improved before voting?

[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e976352e7e42d459091ee66ac790b6a0de7064eac0c57760d50c983b@%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E

В Пт, 24/08/2018 в 10:36 -0700, Matthias J. Sax пишет:
> It's tricky... :)
> 
> Some APIs have "dual use" as I mentioned in my first reply. I agree that
> it would be good to avoid abstract class and use interfaces if possible.
> As long as the change is source code compatible, it should be fine IMHO
> -- we need to document binary incompatibility of course.
> 
> I think it's best, if the KIPs gets update with a proposal on how to
> handle "dual use" parts. It's easier to discuss if it's written down IMHO.
> 
> For `ProcessorContext#schedule()`, you are right John: it's seems fine
> to use `Duration`, as it won't be called often (usually only within
> `Processor#init()`) -- I mixed it up with `Punctuator#punctuate(long)`.
> However, thinking about this twice, we might even want to update both
> methods. Punctuation callbacks don't happen every millisecond and thus
> the overhead to use `Instance` should not be a problem.
> 
> @Nikolay: it seems the KIP does not mention `Punctuator#punctuate(long)`
> -- should we add it?
> 
> 
> -Matthias
> 
> 
> On 8/24/18 10:11 AM, John Roesler wrote:
> > Quick afterthought: I guess that `Window` is exposed to the API via
> > `Windowed` keys. I think it would be fine to not deprecate the `long` start
> > and end, but add `Instant` variants for people preferring that interface.
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:10 AM John Roesler <john@confluent.io> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hey Matthias,
> > > 
> > > Thanks for pointing that out. I agree that we only really need to change
> > > methods that are API-facing, and we probably want to avoid using
> > > Duration/Instant for Streams-facing members.
> > > 
> > > Like I said in my last email, I think the whole Windows interface is
> > > Streams-facing, and the builders we provide are otherwise API-facing.
> > > Likewise, `Window` is Streams-facing, so start and end should not use
> > > Duration. In SessionWindows, inactivityGap is Streams-facing.
> > > 
> > > I actually think that ProcessorContext#schedule() is API-facing, so it
> > > should use Duration. The rationale is that streams processing doesn't call
> > > this method, only implementer of Processor do. Does that seem right?
> > > 
> > > Also, it seems like  ReadOnlyWindowStore#fetch() (2x) and #fetchAll() are
> > > API-facing (for IQ). When we call fetch() during processing, it's actually
> > > `WindowStore#fetch()`. Maybe we should move "WindowStoreIterator<V> fetch(K
> > > key, long timeFrom, long timeTo)" to the WindowStore interface and make
> > > all the ReadOnlyWindowStore methods take Durations. And likewise with the
> > > SessionStore interfaces.
> > > 
> > > What do you think?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > -John
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:51 AM John Roesler <john@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi Nikolay,
> > > > 
> > > > First: I wanted to let you know that we have dropped the `grace(long)`
> > > > method from the Windows interface, but we do still need to transition
the
> > > > same method on TimeWindows and JoinWindows (
> > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5536)
> > > > 
> > > > I have also been thinking it would be nice to replace `Windows` with an
> > > > interface, but for different reasons. I think we can even do it without
> > > > breaking source compatibility (but it would break binary compatibility):
> > > > create a new interface `WindowSpec`, deprecate `Windows` and make it
> > > > implement `WindowSpec`, add a new method:
> > > > `KGroupedStream#windowedBy(WindowSpec)`, and deprecate the old one.
> > > > 
> > > > However, I don't think this would solve your problem, since the Windows
> > > > interface has two audiences: the DSL user and the implementer who wishes
to
> > > > provide a new kind of windowing. I think we want to provide Duration to
the
> > > > former, and long or Duration is fine for the latter. However, both of
these
> > > > audiences are "external", so having an "internal" interface won't fit
the
> > > > bill.
> > > > 
> > > > I think my last PR #5536 actually helps the situation quite a bit. Let's
> > > > forget about the deprecated members. Now, all the public members of Windows
> > > > are abstract methods, so Windows is effectively an interface now. Here's
> > > > how it looks:
> > > > 
> > > > public abstract class Windows<W extends Window> {
> > > > public abstract Map<Long, W> windowsFor(final long timestamp);
> > > > public abstract long size();
> > > > public abstract long gracePeriodMs();
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > Notice that there is no part of this involved with the DSL. When you're
> > > > writing a topology, you don't call any of these methods. It's strictly
an
> > > > interface that tells a Windows implementation what Streams expects from
it.
> > > > A very simple implementation could have no builder methods at all and
just
> > > > return fixed answers to these method calls (this is basically what
> > > > UnlimitedWindows does). It seems like, if we want to use long millis
> > > > internally, then we just need to leave Windows alone.
> > > > 
> > > > What we do want to change is the builder methods in TimeWindows,
> > > > JoinWindows, and UnlimitedWindows. For example, `TimeWindows#of(long)`
> > > > would become `TimeWindows#of(Duration)`, etc. These are the DSL methods.
> > > > 
> > > > Does that make sense?
> > > > -John
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 8:59 AM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hello, Mathias.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks for your feedback.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Thus, it might make sense to keep old and just add new ones?
> > > > > 
> > > > > As far as I understand, we will keep old methods anyway to prevent
> > > > > public API backward compatibility.
> > > > > I agree with you, methods that used internally shouldn't be deprecated.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > End users can use the "nicer" new ones, while we can still use
the
> > > > > 
> > > > > existing ones internally?
> > > > > > Not sure if it would be possible to keep the old ones without
exposing
> > > > > 
> > > > > them as public API?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think, when we decide to remove methods with `long` from public
API,
> > > > > we can do the following:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. Create an interface like `WindowsInternal`.
> > > > > 2. Change Windows to an interface.
> > > > > 3. Create package-private implementation `WindowsImpl`.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ```
> > > > >         package org.apache.kafka.streams.kstream.internals;
> > > > >         public interface WindowsInternal {
> > > > >                 public long start();
> > > > >                 public long end();
> > > > >                 //etc...
> > > > >         }
> > > > > 
> > > > >         package org.apache.kafka.streams.kstream;
> > > > >         public interface Windows<W extends Window> {
> > > > >                 public Instant start();
> > > > >                 public Instant end();
> > > > >                 //...
> > > > >         }
> > > > > 
> > > > >         class WindowsImpl<W extends Window> implements Windows<W>,
> > > > > WindowsInternal {
> > > > > 
> > > > >         }
> > > > > ```
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, in public API we will expose only `Windows` interface and internally
> > > > > we can use `WindowsInternal`
> > > > > But, of course, this will be huge changes in public API.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Let me know what you think about this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think in this KIP we shouldn't deprecate methods, that are used
> > > > > internally.
> > > > > I changed it, now my proposal is just add new methods.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please, let me know if anything more need to be done.
> > > > > 
> > > > > В Ср, 22/08/2018 в 17:29 -0700, Matthias J. Sax пишет:
> > > > > > Thanks a lot for the KIP.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > From my understanding, the idea of the KIP is to improve the
public API
> > > > > > at DSL level. However, not all public methods listed are part
of DSL
> > > > > > level API, but part of runtime API. Those methods are called
during
> > > > > > processing and are on the hot code path. I am not sure, if we
want to
> > > > > > update those methods. We should carefully think about this,
and
> > > > > 
> > > > > consider
> > > > > > to keep Long/long type to keep runtime overhead small. Note,
that the
> > > > > > methods I mention are not required to specify a program using
the DSL
> > > > > > and thus is questionable if the DSL API would be improved if
we change
> > > > > > the methods.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's unfortunate, that some part of the public API stretch the
DSL
> > > > > > builder part as well as the runtime part...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This affects the following methods (please double check if I
missed
> > > > > 
> > > > > any):
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  - Windows#windowsFor()
> > > > > >  - Window#start()
> > > > > >  - Window#end()
> > > > > >  - JoinWindows#windowFor()
> > > > > >  - SessionWindows#inactivitiyGap()
> > > > > >  - TimeWindows#windowFor()
> > > > > >  - UnlimitedWindows#windowFor()
> > > > > >  - ProcessorContext#schedule()
> > > > > >  - ReadOnlyWindowStore#fetch() (2x) and #fetchAll()
> > > > > >  - SessionStore#findSessions() (2x)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > maybe
> > > > > >  - TimeWindowedDeserializer#getWindowSize() (it's unused atm,
but I
> > > > > > could imagine that it might be use on the hot code path in the
furture)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So methods have "dual" use and might be called externally and
> > > > > 
> > > > > internally:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  - Window#start()
> > > > > >  - Window#end()
> > > > > >  - ReadOnlyWindowStore#fetch() (2x) and #fetchAll()
> > > > > >  - SessionStore#findSessions() (2x)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thus, it might make sense to keep old and just add new ones?
End users
> > > > > > can use the "nicer" new ones, while we can still use the existing
ones
> > > > > > internally? Not sure if it would be possible to keep the old
ones
> > > > > > without exposing them as public API?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Let me know what you think about this.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -Matthias
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 8/21/18 11:41 PM, Nikolay Izhikov wrote:
> > > > > > > Dear, commiters.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Please, pay attention to this KIP and share your opinion.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > В Вт, 21/08/2018 в 11:14 -0500, John Roesler пишет:
> > > > > > > > I'll solicit more reviews. Let's get at least one
committer to
> > > > > 
> > > > > chime in
> > > > > > > > before we start a vote (since we need their approval
anyway).
> > > > > > > > -John
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 12:39 PM Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > 
> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Hello, Ted.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comment.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I've edit KIP and change proposal to `windowSize`.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Guys, any other comments?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > В Вс, 19/08/2018 в 14:57 -0700, Ted Yu пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > bq. // or just Duration windowSize();
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > +1 to the above choice.
> > > > > > > > > > The duration is obvious from the return
type. For getter
> > > > > 
> > > > > methods, we
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > use get as prefix (as least for new code).
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 8:03 AM Nikolay
Izhikov <
> > > > > 
> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello, John.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you very much for your feedback!
> > > > > > > > > > > I've addressed all your comments.
> > > > > > > > > > > Please, see my answers and let my know
is anything in KIP
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] needs to
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > improved.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > The correct choice is actually
"Instant", not>
> > > > > 
> > > > > "LocalDateTime"
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > I've changed the methods proposed in
KIP [1] to use Instant.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > I noticed some recent APIs are>
missing (see KIP-328)
> > > > > > > > > > > > those APIs were just added and
have never been released...
> > > > > 
> > > > > you can
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > replace them.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > I've added new methods to KIP [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > Not released methods marked for remove.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > any existing method that's already
deprecated, don't bother
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > transitioning it to Duration.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > IllegalArgumentException... we
should plan to mention this
> > > > > 
> > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > javadoc for those methods.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Got it.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > In Stores, windowSize and segmentInterval
should also be
> > > > > 
> > > > > durations.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > StreamsMetrics, recordLatency
... this one is better left
> > > > > 
> > > > > alone.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > OK. I removed this method from KIP
[1].
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Two more questions question about implementation:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. We have serveral methods without
parameters.
> > > > > > > > > > > In java we can't have two methods with
parameters with the
> > > > > 
> > > > > same name.
> > > > > > > > > > > It wouldn't compile.
> > > > > > > > > > > So we have to rename new methods. Please,
see suggested
> > > > > 
> > > > > names and share
> > > > > > > > > > > your thoughts:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Windows {
> > > > > > > > > > >     long size() -> Duration windowSize();
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Window {
> > > > > > > > > > >     long start() -> Instant startTime();
> > > > > > > > > > >     long end() -> Instant endTime();
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > SessionWindows {
> > > > > > > > > > >     long inactivityGap() -> Duration
inactivityGapDuration();
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > TimeWindowedDeserializer {
> > > > > > > > > > >     Long getWindowSize() -> Duration
> > > > > 
> > > > > getWindowSizeDuration(); // or
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > Duration windowSize();
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > SessionBytesStoreSupplier {
> > > > > > > > > > >     long retentionPeriod() -> Duration
> > > > > 
> > > > > retentionPeriodDuration();
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > WindowBytesStoreSupplier {
> > > > > > > > > > >     long windowSize() -> Duration
windowSizeDuration();
> > > > > > > > > > >     long retentionPeriod() -> Duration
> > > > > 
> > > > > retentionPeriodDuration();
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. Do we want to use Duration and Instant
inside API
> > > > > 
> > > > > implementations?
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > IGNITE-7277: "Durations potentially
worsen memory pressure
> > > > > 
> > > > > and gc
> > > > > > > > > > > performance, so internally, we will
still use longMs as the
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > representation."
> > > > > > > > > > > IGNITE-7222: Duration used to store
retention.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-358%3A+Migrate+Streams+API+to+Duration+instead+of+long+ms+times
> > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/commit/b3771ba22acad7870e38ff7f58820c5b50946787#diff-47289575d3e3e2449f27b3a7b6788e1aR64
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > В Пт, 17/08/2018 в 14:46 -0500,
John Roesler пишет:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Nikolay,
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this very nice KIP!
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > To answer your questions:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Correct, we should not delete
existing methods that
> > > > > 
> > > > > have been
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > released,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Yes, we should deprecate the
'long' variants so that we
> > > > > 
> > > > > can drop
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > later on. Personally, I like to
mention which version
> > > > > 
> > > > > deprecated the
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > method
> > > > > > > > > > > > so everyone can see later on how
long it's been
> > > > > 
> > > > > deprecated, but this
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > controversial, so let's let other
weigh in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. I think you're asking whether
it's appropriate to drop
> > > > > 
> > > > > the "Ms"
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > suffix,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and I think yes. So "long inactivityGapMs"
would become
> > > > > 
> > > > > "Duration
> > > > > > > > > > > > inactivityGap".
> > > > > > > > > > > > In the places where the parameter's
name is just
> > > > > 
> > > > > "duration", I think
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > pick something more descriptive
(I realize it was already
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > "durationMs";
> > > > > > > > > > > > this is just a good time to improve
it).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also, you're correct that we shouldn't
use a Duration to
> > > > > 
> > > > > represent a
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > moment
> > > > > > > > > > > > in time, like "startTime". The
correct choice is actually
> > > > > 
> > > > > "Instant",
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > "LocalDateTime", though.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32437550/whats-the-difference-between-instant-and-localdatetime
> > > > > > > > > > > > explains why.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > I also had a few notes on the
KIP itself:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4. You might want to pull trunk
again. I noticed some
> > > > > 
> > > > > recent APIs are
> > > > > > > > > > > > missing (see KIP-328).
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Speaking of KIP-328: those
APIs were just added and
> > > > > 
> > > > > have never
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > released, so there's no need to
deprecate the methods, you
> > > > > 
> > > > > can just
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 6. For any existing method that's
already deprecated,
> > > > > 
> > > > > don't bother
> > > > > > > > > > > > transitioning it to Duration.
I think the examples I
> > > > > 
> > > > > noticed were
> > > > > > > > > > > > deprecated in KIP-328, so you'll
see what I'm talking
> > > > > 
> > > > > about when you
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > pull
> > > > > > > > > > > > trunk again.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 7. Any method taking a Duration
argument may throw an
> > > > > > > > > > > > IllegalArgumentException (we choose
to convert
> > > > > 
> > > > > ArithmeticException to
> > > > > > > > > > > > IllegalArgumentException, as I
mentioned in the Jira
> > > > > 
> > > > > ticket). We
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > a "throws" declaration, but we
should plan to mention this
> > > > > 
> > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > javadoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > for those methods.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 8. In Stores, windowSize and segmentInterval
should also be
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > durations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 9. In StreamsMetrics, recordLatency
could be just a
> > > > > 
> > > > > Duration, but I
> > > > > > > > > > > > actually think this one is better
left alone. IMO, it's
> > > > > 
> > > > > more effort
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > little gain to require users to
construct a Duration
> > > > > 
> > > > > before they
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > call the
> > > > > > > > > > > > method, since they vary likely
call
> > > > > 
> > > > > System.currentTimeNanos before
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > after the code in question.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > These are quite a few notes, but
they're all minor.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Overall the KIP
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > > > > really good to me. Thanks for
picking this up!
> > > > > > > > > > > > -John
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 9:55 AM
Nikolay Izhikov <
> > > > > 
> > > > > nizhikov@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Kafka developers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion
of KIP-358 [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It based on a ticket KAFKA-7277
[2].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I crawled through Stream
API and made my suggestions for
> > > > > 
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have several questions
about changes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, share your comments:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. I propose do not remove
existing API methods with
> > > > > 
> > > > > long ms
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > parameters.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it correct?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Should we mark existing
methods as deprecated?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Suggested changes in ticket
description are `long
> > > > > 
> > > > > durationMs` to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > `Duration duration` and similar.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest to change 'long
startTimeMs` to `LocalDateTime
> > > > > 
> > > > > startTime`
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > also.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Should we do it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, note, it very first
KIP for me, so tell me if I
> > > > > 
> > > > > miss
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > something
> > > > > > > > > > > > > obvious for experienced Kafka
developers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-358%3A+Migrate+Streams+API+to+Duration+instead+of+long+ms+times
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7277
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> 
> 
Mime
View raw message