Hey Guozhang, Thanks for the thought! It sounds related to what I was thinking in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-8396 , but a little "extra"...
I proposed to eliminate ValueTransformer, but I believe you're right; we could eliminate Transformer also and just use Processor in the transform() methods. To your first bullet, regarding transform/flatTransform... I'd argue that the difference isn't material and if we switch to just using context.forward instead of returns, then we just need one and people can call forward as much as they want. It certainly warrants further discussion, though... To the second point, yes, I'm thinking that we can eschew the ValueTransformer and instead do something like ignore the forwarded key or check the key for serial identity, etc. The ultimate advantage of these ideas is that we reduce the number of interface variants and we also give people just one way to pass values forward instead of two. Of course, it's beyond the scope of this KIP, but this KIP is a precondition for these further improvements. I'm copying your comment onto the ticket for posterity. Thanks! -John On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 5:38 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi John, > > Just a wild thought about Transformer: now with the new Processor<KIn, > KOut, VIn, VOut>#init(ProcessorContext<KOut, VOut>), do we still need a > Transformer (and even ValueTransformer / ValueTransformerWithKey)? > > What if: > > * We just make KStream#transform to get a ProcessorSupplier as well, and > inside `process()` we check that at most one `context.forward()` is called, > and then take it as the return value. > * We would still use ValueTransformer for KStream#transformValue, or we can > also use a `ProcessorSupplier where we allow at most one > `context.forward()` AND we ignore whatever passed in as key but just use > the original key. > > > Guozhang > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 9:03 AM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Hi again, all, > > > > I have started the voting thread. Please cast your votes (or voice > > your objections)! The vote will remain open at least 72 hours. Once it > > closes, I can send the PR pretty quickly. > > > > Thanks for all you help ironing out the details on this feature. > > -John > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:09 PM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > It sounds like there's general agreement now on this KIP, so I updated > > > the KIP to fit in with Guozhang's overall proposed package structure. > > > Specifically, the proposed name for the new Processor interface is > > > "org.apache.kafka.streams.processor.api.Processor". > > > > > > If there are no objections, then I plan to start the vote tomorrow! > > > > > > Thanks, all, for your contributions. > > > -John > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 1:50 PM Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Side remark: > > > > > > > > > Now that "flat transform" is a specific > > > > >> part of the API it seems okay to steer folks in that direction (to > > never > > > > >> use context.process in a transformer), but it should be called out > > > > >> explicitly in javadocs. Currently Transformer (which is used for > > both > > > > >> transform() and flatTransform() ) doesn't really call out the > > ambiguity: > > > > > > > > Would you want to do a PR for address this? We are always eager to > > > > improve the JavaDocs! > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > On 7/7/19 11:26 AM, Paul Whalen wrote: > > > > > First of all, +1 on the whole idea, my team has run into > (admittedly > > minor, > > > > > but definitely annoying) issues because of the weaker typing. > We're > > heavy > > > > > users of the PAPI and have Processors that, while not hundreds of > > lines > > > > > long, are certainly quite hefty and call context.forward() in many > > places. > > > > > > > > > > After reading the KIP and discussion a few times, I've convinced > > myself > > > > > that any initial concerns I had aren't really concerns at all > (state > > store > > > > > types, for one). One thing I will mention: changing *Transformer* > > to have > > > > > ProcessorContext<Void, Void> gave me pause, because I have code > that > > does > > > > > context.forward in transformers. Now that "flat transform" is a > > specific > > > > > part of the API it seems okay to steer folks in that direction (to > > never > > > > > use context.process in a transformer), but it should be called out > > > > > explicitly in javadocs. Currently Transformer (which is used for > > both > > > > > transform() and flatTransform() ) doesn't really call out the > > ambiguity: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/ca641b3e2e48c14ff308181c775775408f5f35f7/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/kstream/Transformer.java#L75-L77 > > , > > > > > and for migrating users (from before flatTransform) it could be > > confusing. > > > > > > > > > > Side note, I'd like to plug KIP-401 (there is a discussion thread > > and a > > > > > voting thread) which also relates to using the PAPI. It seems like > > there > > > > > is some interest and it is in a votable state with the majority of > > > > > implementation complete. > > > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 2:02 PM Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Sorry for coming late to the party. > > > > >> > > > > >> As for the naming I'm in favor of RecordProcessor as well. > > > > >> > > > > >> I agree that we should not take on doing all of the package > > movements as > > > > >> part of this KIP, especially as John has pointed out, it will be > an > > > > >> opportunity to discuss some clean-up on individual classes which I > > envision > > > > >> becoming another somewhat involved process. > > > > >> > > > > >> For the end goal, if possible, here's what I propose. > > > > >> > > > > >> 1. We keep the scope of the KIP the same, *but we only > > implement* *it in > > > > >> phases* > > > > >> 2. Phase one could include what Guozhang had proposed earlier > > namely > > > > >> 1. > 1.a) modifying ProcessorContext only with the output types > > on > > > > >> forward. > > > > >> > 1.b) modifying Transformer signature to have generics of > > > > >> ProcessorContext, > > > > >> > and then lift the restricting of not using punctuate: if > > user did > > > > >> not > > > > >> > follow the enforced typing and just code without generics, > > they > > > > >> will get > > > > >> > warning at compile time and get run-time error if they > > forward > > > > >> wrong-typed > > > > >> > records, which I think would be acceptable. > > > > >> 3. Then we could tackle other pieces in an incremental manner > as > > we see > > > > >> what makes sense > > > > >> > > > > >> Just my 2cents > > > > >> > > > > >> -Bill > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:22 PM Guozhang Wang < > wangg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Hi John, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Yeah I think we should not do all the repackaging as part of this > > KIP as > > > > >>> well (we can just do the movement of the Processor / > > ProcessorSupplier), > > > > >>> but I think we need to discuss the end goal here since otherwise > > we may > > > > >> do > > > > >>> the repackaging of Processor in this KIP, but only later on > > realizing > > > > >> that > > > > >>> other re-packagings are not our favorite solutions. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Guozhang > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:06 PM John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Hey Guozhang, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Thanks for the idea! I'm wondering if we could take a middle > > ground > > > > >>>> and take your proposed layout as a "roadmap", while only > actually > > > > >>>> moving the classes that are already involved in this KIP. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> The reason I ask is not just to control the scope of this KIP, > but > > > > >>>> also, I think that if we move other classes to new packages, we > > might > > > > >>>> also want to take the opportunity to clean up other things about > > them. > > > > >>>> But each one of those would become a discussion point of its > own, > > so > > > > >>>> it seems the discussion would become intractable. FWIW, I do > like > > your > > > > >>>> idea for precisely this reason, it creates opportunities for us > to > > > > >>>> consider other changes that we are simply not able to make > without > > > > >>>> breaking source compatibility. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> If the others feel "kind of favorable" with this overall vision, > > maybe > > > > >>>> we can make one or more Jira tickets to capture it, and then > just > > > > >>>> alter _this_ proposal to `processor.api.Processor` (etc). > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> WDYT? > > > > >>>> -John > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:17 PM Guozhang Wang < > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Hello John, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Thanks for your detailed explanation, I've done some quick > > checks on > > > > >>> some > > > > >>>>> existing examples that heavily used Processor and the results > > also > > > > >>> makes > > > > >>>> me > > > > >>>>> worried about my previous statements that "the breakage would > > not be > > > > >>>> big". > > > > >>>>> I agree we should maintain compatibility. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> About the naming itself, I'm actually a bit inclined into > > > > >> sub-packages > > > > >>>> than > > > > >>>>> renamed new classes, and my motivations are that our current > > > > >> packaging > > > > >>> is > > > > >>>>> already quite coarsen grained and sometimes ill-placed, and > hence > > > > >> maybe > > > > >>>> we > > > > >>>>> can take this change along with some clean up on packages (but > > again, > > > > >>> we > > > > >>>>> should follow the deprecate - removal path). What I'm thinking > > is: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> ------------------- > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> processor/: > > StateRestoreCallback/AbstractNotifyingRestoreCallback, > > > > >>>> (deprecated > > > > >>>>> later, same meaning for other cross-throughs), ProcessContest, > > > > >>>>> RecordContext, Punctuator, PunctuationType, To, Cancellable > (are > > the > > > > >>> only > > > > >>>>> things left) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (new) processor/api/: Processor, ProcessorSupplier (and of > > course, > > > > >>> these > > > > >>>>> two classes can be strong typed) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> state/: StateStore, BatchingStateRestoreCallback, > > > > >>>>> AbstractNotifyingBatchingRestoreCallback (moved from > processor/), > > > > >>>>> PartitionGrouper, WindowStoreIterator, StateSerdes (this one > can > > be > > > > >>> moved > > > > >>>>> into state/internals), TimestampedByteStore (we can move this > to > > > > >>>> internals > > > > >>>>> since store types would use vat by default, see below), > > > > >>> ValueAndTimestamp > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (new) state/factory/: Stores, StoreBuilder, StoreSupplier; > *BUT* > > the > > > > >>> new > > > > >>>>> Stores would not have timestampedXXBuilder APIs since the > default > > > > >>>>> StoreSupplier / StoreBuilder value types are ValueAndTimestamp > > > > >> already. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (new) state/queryable/: QueryableStoreType, > QueryableStoreTypes, > > > > >>> HostInfo > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (new) state/keyValue/: KeyValueXXX classes, and also the same > for > > > > >>>>> state/sessionWindow and state/timeWindow; *BUT* here we use > > > > >>>>> ValueAndTimestamp as value types of those APIs directly, and > also > > > > >>>>> TimestampedKeyValue/WindowStore would be deprecated. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (new) kstream/api/: KStream, KTable, GroupedKStream (renamed > from > > > > >>>>> KGroupedStream), GroupedKTable (renamed from KGroupedTable), > > > > >>>>> TimeWindowedKStream, SessionWindowedKStream, GlobalKTable > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (new) kstream/operator/: Aggregator, ForeachFunction, ... , > > Merger > > > > >> and > > > > >>>>> Grouped, Joined, Materialized, ... , Printed and Transformer, > > > > >>>>> TransformerSupplier. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (new) kstream/window/: Window, Windows, Windowed, TimeWindows, > > > > >>>>> SessionWindows, UnlimitedWindows, JoinWindows, WindowedSerdes, > > > > >>>>> Time/SessionWindowedSerialized/Deserializer. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (new) configure/: RocksDBConfigSetter, TopicNameExtractor, > > > > >>>>> TimestampExtractor, UsePreviousTimeOnInvalidTimestamp, > > > > >>>>> WallclockTimestampExtractor, ExtractRecordMetadataTimestamp, > > > > >>>>> FailOnInvalidTimestamp, LogAndSkipOnInvalidTimestamp, > > > > >>>> StateRestoreListener, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> (new) metadata/: StreamsMetadata, ThreadMetadata, TaskMetadata, > > > > >> TaskId > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Still, any xxx/internals packages are declared as inner > classes, > > but > > > > >>>> other > > > > >>>>> xxx/yyy packages are declared as public APIs. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> ------------------- > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> This is a very wild thought and I can totally understand if > > people > > > > >> feel > > > > >>>>> this is too much since it definitely enlarges the scope of this > > KIP a > > > > >>> lot > > > > >>>>> :) just trying to play a devil's advocate here to do major > > > > >> refactoring > > > > >>>> and > > > > >>>>> avoid renaming Processor classes. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Guozhang > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:51 PM Matthias J. Sax < > > > > >> matth...@confluent.io > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> I think `RecordProcessor` is a good name. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> -Matthias > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On 6/21/19 5:09 PM, John Roesler wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> After kicking the naming around a bit more, it seems like any > > > > >>> package > > > > >>>>>>> name change is a bit "weird" because it fragments the package > > and > > > > >>>>>>> directory structure. If we can come up with a reasonable name > > for > > > > >>> the > > > > >>>>>>> interface after all, it seems like the better choice. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> The real challenge is that the existing name "Processor" > seems > > > > >> just > > > > >>>>>>> about perfect. In picking a new name, we need to consider the > > > > >>>> ultimate > > > > >>>>>>> state, after the deprecation period, when we entirely remove > > > > >>>>>>> Processor. In this context, TypedProcessor seems a little odd > > to > > > > >>> me, > > > > >>>>>>> because it seems to imply that there should also be an > "untyped > > > > >>>>>>> processor". > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> After kicking around a few other ideas, what does everyone > > think > > > > >>>> about > > > > >>>>>>> "RecordProcessor"? I _think_ maybe it stands on its own just > > > > >> fine, > > > > >>>>>>> because it's a thing that processes... records? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> If others agree with this, I can change the proposal to > > > > >>>> RecordProcessor. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > >>>>>>> -John > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 6:42 PM John Roesler < > > j...@confluent.io> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi all, > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I've updated the KIP with the feedback so far. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> The naming question is still the biggest (only?) outstanding > > > > >>> issue. > > > > >>>> It > > > > >>>>>>>> would be good to hear some more thoughts on it. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> As we stand now, there's one vote for changing the package > > name > > > > >> to > > > > >>>>>>>> something like 'typedprocessor', one for changing the > > interface > > > > >> to > > > > >>>>>>>> TypedProcessor (as in the PoC), and one for just changing > the > > > > >>>>>>>> Processor interface in-place, breaking source compatibility. > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> How can we resolve this decision? > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > >>>>>>>> -John > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 5:44 PM John Roesler < > > j...@confluent.io > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback, Guozhang and Matthias, > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Regarding motivation: I'll update the wiki. Briefly: > > > > >>>>>>>>> * Any processor can benefit. Imagine a pure user of the > > > > >>>> ProcessorAPI > > > > >>>>>>>>> who has very complex processing logic. I have seen several > > > > >>>> processor > > > > >>>>>>>>> implementation that are hundreds of lines long and call > > > > >>>>>>>>> `context.forward` in many different locations and branches. > > In > > > > >>>> such an > > > > >>>>>>>>> implementation, it would be very easy to have a bug in a > > rarely > > > > >>>> used > > > > >>>>>>>>> branch that forwards the wrong kind of value. This would > > > > >>>> structurally > > > > >>>>>>>>> prevent that from happening. > > > > >>>>>>>>> * Also, anyone who heavily uses the ProcessorAPI would > likely > > > > >>> have > > > > >>>>>>>>> developed helper methods to wire together processors, just > as > > > > >> we > > > > >>>> have > > > > >>>>>>>>> in the DSL implementation. This change would enable them to > > > > >>> ensure > > > > >>>> at > > > > >>>>>>>>> compile time that they are actually wiring together > > compatible > > > > >>>> types. > > > > >>>>>>>>> This was actually _my_ original motivation, since I found > it > > > > >> very > > > > >>>>>>>>> difficult and time consuming to follow the Streams DSL > > internal > > > > >>>>>>>>> builders. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Regarding breaking the source compatibility of Processor: I > > > > >> would > > > > >>>>>>>>> _love_ to side-step the naming problem, but I really don't > > know > > > > >>> if > > > > >>>>>>>>> it's excusable to break compatibility. I suspect that our > > > > >> oldest > > > > >>>> and > > > > >>>>>>>>> dearest friends are using the ProcessorAPI in some form or > > > > >>> another, > > > > >>>>>>>>> and all their source code would break. It sucks to have to > > > > >>> create a > > > > >>>>>>>>> whole new interface to get around this, but it feels like > the > > > > >>> right > > > > >>>>>>>>> thing to do. Would be nice to get even more feedback on > this > > > > >>> point, > > > > >>>>>>>>> though. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Regarding the types of stores, as I said in my response to > > > > >>> Sophie, > > > > >>>>>>>>> it's not an issue. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Regarding the change to StreamsBuilder, it doesn't pin the > > > > >> types > > > > >>> in > > > > >>>>>>>>> any way, since all the types are bounded by Object only, > and > > > > >>> there > > > > >>>> are > > > > >>>>>>>>> no extra constraints between arguments (each type is used > > only > > > > >>>> once in > > > > >>>>>>>>> one argument). But maybe I missed the point you were asking > > > > >>> about. > > > > >>>>>>>>> Since the type takes generic paramters, we should allow > users > > > > >> to > > > > >>>> pass > > > > >>>>>>>>> in parameterized arguments. Otherwise, they would _have to_ > > > > >> give > > > > >>>> us a > > > > >>>>>>>>> raw type, and they would be forced to get a "rawtyes" > warning > > > > >>> from > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>> compiler. So, it's our obligation in any API that accepts a > > > > >>>>>>>>> parameterized-type parameter to allow people to actually > > pass a > > > > >>>>>>>>> parameterized type, even if we don't actually use the > > > > >> parameters. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> The naming question is a complex one, as I took pains to > > detail > > > > >>>>>>>>> previously. Please don't just pick out one minor point, > call > > it > > > > >>>> weak, > > > > >>>>>>>>> and then claim that it invalidates the whole decision. I > > don't > > > > >>>> think > > > > >>>>>>>>> there's a clear best choice, so I'm more than happy for > > someone > > > > >>> to > > > > >>>>>>>>> advocate for renaming the class instead of the package. Can > > you > > > > >>>>>>>>> provide some reasons why you think that would be better? > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Regarding the deprecated methods, you're absolutely right. > > I'll > > > > >>>>> update the KIP. > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks again for all the feedback! > > > > >>>>>>>>> -John > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:34 PM Matthias J. Sax < > > > > >>>> matth...@confluent.io> > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Just want to second what Sophie said about the stores. The > > > > >> type > > > > >>>> of a > > > > >>>>>>>>>> used stores is completely independent of input/output > types. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> This related to change `addGlobalStore()` method. Why do > you > > > > >>> want > > > > >>>> to > > > > >>>>> pin > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the types? In fact, people request the ability to filter() > > and > > > > >>>> maybe > > > > >>>>>>>>>> even map() the data before they are put into the global > > store. > > > > >>>>> Limiting > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the types seems to be a step backward here? > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also, the pack name is questionable. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> This wouldn't be the first project to do something like > > > > >> this... > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Not a strong argument. I would actually propose to not a a > > new > > > > >>>>> package, > > > > >>>>>>>>>> but just a new class `TypedProcessor`. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> For `ProcessorContext#forward` methods -- some of those > > > > >> methods > > > > >>>> are > > > > >>>>>>>>>> already deprecated. While the will still be affected, it > > would > > > > >>> be > > > > >>>>> worth > > > > >>>>>>>>>> to mark them as deprecated in the wiki page, too. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> @Guozhang: I dont' think we should break source > > compatibility > > > > >>> in a > > > > >>>>> minor > > > > >>>>>>>>>> release. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -Matthias > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/19 1:43 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi John, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for KIP! I've a few comments below: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. So far the "Motivation" section is very general, and > the > > > > >>> only > > > > >>>>> concrete > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> example that I have in mind is > `TransformValues#punctuate`. > > > > >> Do > > > > >>> we > > > > >>>>> have any > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> other concrete issues that drive this KIP? If not then I > > feel > > > > >>>>> better to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> narrow the scope of this KIP to: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 1.a) modifying ProcessorContext only with the output > types > > on > > > > >>>>> forward. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 1.b) modifying Transformer signature to have generics of > > > > >>>>> ProcessorContext, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and then lift the restricting of not using punctuate: if > > user > > > > >>> did > > > > >>>>> not > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> follow the enforced typing and just code without > generics, > > > > >> they > > > > >>>>> will get > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> warning at compile time and get run-time error if they > > > > >> forward > > > > >>>>> wrong-typed > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> records, which I think would be acceptable. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I feel this would be a good solution for this specific > > issue; > > > > >>>>> again, feel > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> free to update the wiki page with other known issues that > > > > >>> cannot > > > > >>>> be > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> resolved. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. If, we want to go with the current scope then my next > > > > >>> question > > > > >>>>> would be, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> how much breakage we would introducing if we just modify > > the > > > > >>>>> Processor > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> signature directly? My feeling is that DSL users would be > > > > >> most > > > > >>>>> likely not > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> affected and PAPI users only need to modify a few lines > on > > > > >>> class > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> declaration. I feel it worth doing some research on this > > part > > > > >>> and > > > > >>>>> then > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> decide if we really want to bite the bullet of duplicated > > > > >>>> Processor > > > > >>>>> / > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ProcessorSupplier classes for maintaining compatibility. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:21 PM John Roesler < > > > > >>> j...@confluent.io > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In response to the feedback so far, I changed the > package > > > > >> name > > > > >>>> from > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> `processor2` to `processor.generic`. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -John > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:49 PM John Roesler < > > > > >>> j...@confluent.io > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback, Sophie! > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I actually felt a little uneasy when I wrote that > remark, > > > > >>>> because > > > > >>>>> it's > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> not restricted at all in the API, it's just available > to > > > > >> you > > > > >>> if > > > > >>>>> you > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> choose to give your stores and context the same > > parameters. > > > > >>>> So, I > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> think your use case is valid, and also perfectly > > > > >> permissable > > > > >>>>> under the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> current KIP. Sorry for sowing confusion on my own > > > > >> discussion > > > > >>>>> thread! > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not crazy about the package name, either. I went > with > > > > >> it > > > > >>>> only > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> because there's seemingly nothing special about the new > > > > >>> package > > > > >>>>> except > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that it can't have the same name as the old one. > > Otherwise, > > > > >>> the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> existing "processor" and "Processor" names for the > > package > > > > >>> and > > > > >>>>> class > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> are perfectly satisfying. Rather than pile on > additional > > > > >>>>> semantics, it > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> seemed cleaner to just add a number to the package > name. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This wouldn't be the first project to do something like > > > > >>> this... > > > > >>>>> Apache > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Commons, for example, has added a "2" to the end of > some > > of > > > > >>>> their > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> packages for exactly the same reason. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm open to any suggestions. For example, we could do > > > > >>> something > > > > >>>>> like > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.kafka.streams.typedprocessor.Processor or > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.kafka.streams.processor.typed.Processor , > > which > > > > >>>> would > > > > >>>>> have > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> just about the same effect. One microscopic thought is > > > > >> that, > > > > >>> if > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> there's another interface in the "processor" package > that > > > > >> we > > > > >>>> wish > > > > >>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> do the same thing to, would _could_ pile it in to > > > > >>> "processor2", > > > > >>>>> but we > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't do the same if we use a package that has > "typed" > > > > >> in > > > > >>>> the > > > > >>>>> name, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> unless that change is _also_ related to types in some > > way. > > > > >>> But > > > > >>>>> this > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> seems like a very minor concern. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> What's your preference? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -John > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 3:56 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman < > > > > >>>>> sop...@confluent.io> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey John, thanks for writing this up! I like the > > proposal > > > > >>> but > > > > >>>>> there's > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> one > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that I think may be too restrictive: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "A processor that happens to use a typed store is > > actually > > > > >>>>> emitting the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> same types that it is storing." > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can imagine someone could want to leverage this new > > type > > > > >>>> safety > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> without > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also limiting how they can interact with/use their > > store. > > > > >> As > > > > >>>> an > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (admittedly > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contrived) example, say you have an input stream of > > > > >>> purchases > > > > >>>> of > > > > >>>>> a > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> certain > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> type (entertainment, food, etc), and on seeing a new > > > > >> record > > > > >>>> you > > > > >>>>> want to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> output how many types of purchase a shopper has made > > more > > > > >>>> than 5 > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> purchases > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of in the last month. Your state store will probably > be > > > > >>>> holding > > > > >>>>> some > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> more > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated PurchaseHistory object (keyed by user), > but > > > > >> your > > > > >>>>> output is > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> just > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a <User, Long> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm also not crazy about "processor2" as the package > > name > > > > >>> ... > > > > >>>>> not sure > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> what > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a better one would be though (something with "typed"?) > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:47 PM John Roesler < > > > > >>>> j...@confluent.io> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to propose KIP-478 ( > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/2SkLBw > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ). > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This proposal would add output type bounds to the > > > > >> Processor > > > > >>>>> interface > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Kafka Streams, which enables static checking of a > > > > >> number > > > > >>>> of > > > > >>>>> useful > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * A processor B that consumes the output of > processor A > > > > >> is > > > > >>>>> actually > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expecting the same types that processor A produces. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * A processor that happens to use a typed store is > > > > >> actually > > > > >>>>> emitting > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same types that it is storing. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * A processor is simply forwarding the expected types > > in > > > > >>> all > > > > >>>>> code > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> paths. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Processors added via the Streams DSL, which are not > > > > >>>> permitted > > > > >>>>> to > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward results at all are statically prevented from > > > > >> doing > > > > >>> so > > > > >>>>> by the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internally, we can use the above properties to > achieve > > a > > > > >>> much > > > > >>>>> higher > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level of confidence in the Streams DSL > implementation's > > > > >>>>> correctness. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, while doing the POC, I found a few bugs and > > > > >>>> mistakes, > > > > >>>>> which > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become structurally impossible with KIP-478. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, the stronger types dramatically improve > > the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-documentation of our Streams internal > > > > >> implementations, > > > > >>>>> which > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it much easier for new contributors to ramp up > > with > > > > >>>>> confidence. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks so much for your consideration! > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -John > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> -- > > > > >>>>> -- Guozhang > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -- > > > > >>> -- Guozhang > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang >
