That's a good idea, I think StoreBuilder#metricsScope() is not a very
intrusive API to add. But note that the metricsScope() is not identical to
KIP-591's store type enum, e.g. the former's possible values include
"rocksdb-session" and "rocksdb-window".
Guozhang
On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 2:21 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <sop...@confluent.io>
wrote:
> I suppose we could add a method to the StoreBuilder interface that calls
> through
> to the metricsScope() method of the StoreSupplier, similar to what we do
> for the store
> name.
>
> It feels a bit indirect but the metricsScope() should be an accurate
> description of
> the underlying store type. The whole point of metricsScope() is to identify
> the store
> type for use in metrics, so it seems like a reasonable extension to use it
> to identify
> the store type in the topology description as well.
>
> Or, if KIP-591 ever gets resurrected, maybe we will have a new store type
> enum or
> other public API to identify the stores that we can leverage here. But that
> KIP seems
> to have gone dormant as well :)
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey Sophie,
> >
> > I've thought about this as well. But the tricky thing is that the
> topology
> > description's state store input is from the `StoreBuilder` class, which
> > does not include type information. If we want to peek into such info we
> > could call its `build` function, get the actual store and dig it out, but
> > this would build the actual store even before the tasks are assigned etc.
> >
> > We can, however, extend the API of StoreBuilder to expose its store type
> > information but we need to be careful here: the interface is a public API
> > and information too specific like `RocksDBWindow` may be leaking too much
> > here. WDYT?
> >
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 8:12 PM Sophie Blee-Goldman <sop...@confluent.io
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hey Guozhang, what's the status of this KIP?
> > >
> > > I was recently digging through a particularly opaque Streams
> application
> > > and
> > > it occurred to me that it might also be useful to print the kind of
> store
> > > attached
> > > to each node (eg RocksDBWindowStore, InMemoryKeyValueStore, custom,
> > > etc). That made me think of this KIP so I was just wondering where it
> > ended
> > > up. And if you want to pick it up again, WDYT about including some
> minor
> > > store information in the augmented description?
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 1:22 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We already has a Serdes actually, which is a factory class. What we
> > > really
> > > > need is to add new functions to `Serde`, `Serializer` and
> > `Deserializer`
> > > > interfaces, but since we already dropped Java7 backward compatibility
> > may
> > > > not be a big issue anyways, let me think about it a bit more.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:01 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Guozhang.
> > > > >
> > > > > This makes sense. I am still wondering about wrapped serdes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > and if it is a wrapper serde, also print its inner
> > > > > >>> serde name
> > > > >
> > > > > How can our default implementation of `TopologyDescriber` know if
> > it's
> > > a
> > > > > wrapped serde or not? Furthermore, how do wrapped serdes expose
> their
> > > > > inner serdes?
> > > > >
> > > > > I am also not sure what the purpose of TopologyDescriber is? Would
> it
> > > > > mabye be better to add new interface `Serdes` can implement
> instead?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Matthias
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/18/20 9:24 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > > > Bruno, Matthias:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your inputs. After some thoughts I've decide to update
> > my
> > > > > > proposal in the following way:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Store#serdes() would return a "Map<String, String>"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Topology's description would be independent of whether it is
> > > > generated
> > > > > > from `StreamsBuilder#build(props)` or `StreamsBuilder#build()`,
> and
> > > if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > serde is not known we would use "<unknown>" as the default value.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Add `List<String> TopologyDescription#sourceTopics() /
> > > sinkTopics()
> > > > /
> > > > > > repartitionTopics() / changelogTopics()` and for pattern /
> > > > > topic-extractor
> > > > > > we would use fixed format of "<pattern:regex>" and
> > > > > > "<dynamic:extractor-class-name>".
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will try to implement this in my existing PR and after I've
> > > confirmed
> > > > > it
> > > > > > works, I will update the final wiki for voting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Guozhang
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 9:13 PM Guozhang Wang <
> wangg...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hello Andy,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks a lot for your comments! I do not mind at all :)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I think that's a valid point, what I have in mind is to expose
> an
> > > > > >> interface which can be optionally overridden in the overridden
> > > > > describe()
> > > > > >> call:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Topology#describe(final TopologyDescriber)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Interface TopologyDescriber {
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> default describeSerde(final Serde);
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> default describeSerializer(final Serializer);
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> default describeDeserializer(final Serializer);
> > > > > >> }
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> And we would expose a DefaultTopologyDescriber class that just
> > print
> > > > the
> > > > > >> serde class names -- and if it is a wrapper serde, also print
> its
> > > > inner
> > > > > >> serde name.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Guozhang
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:13 PM Andy Coates <a...@confluent.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks for writing this up. I’m very interested to see this,
> so I
> > > > hope
> > > > > >>> you don’t mind me commenting.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I’ve only really one comment to make, and that’s on the text
> > > printed
> > > > > for
> > > > > >>> the serde classes:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> As I understand it, the name will either come from the passed
> in
> > > > > config,
> > > > > >>> or may default to “unknown”, or may be obtained from the
> > instances
> > > > > passed
> > > > > >>> while building the topology. It’s this latter case that
> interests
> > > me.
> > > > > >>> Where you have an actual serde instance could we not output
> more
> > > > > >>> information?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> The examples use simple (de)serialization classes such as
> > > > > >>> `LongDeseriailizer` where the name alone imparts all the
> > > information
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>> user is likely to need. However, users may provide there own
> > custom
> > > > > >>> serialisers and such serialisers may contain state that is
> > > important,
> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > >>> the serialiser may know the schema of the data being
> serialized.
> > > May
> > > > > there
> > > > > >>> be benefit from taking the `toString()` representation of the
> > > > > serialiser?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Of course, this would require adding suitable `toString` impls
> to
> > > our
> > > > > own
> > > > > >>> stock serialisers, but may ultimately prove more versatile in
> the
> > > > > future.
> > > > > >>> The downside is potential to corrupt the topology description,
> > > e.g. a
> > > > > >>> toString that includes new lines etc.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Andy
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> On 4 May 2020, at 19:27, Bruno Cadonna <br...@confluent.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Thank you for the KIP!
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Exposing also the inner types of the wrapper serdes would be
> > > > > >>>> important. For debugging as Matthias has already mentioned and
> > to
> > > > see
> > > > > >>>> more easily changes that are applied to a topology.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I am also +1 on the `toJson()` method to easily access the
> > > topology
> > > > > >>>> description programmatically and to make the description
> > backward
> > > > > >>>> compatible.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Regarding `List<String> serdeNames();`, I would be in favour
> of
> > a
> > > > more
> > > > > >>>> expressive return type, like a Map that assigns labels to
> Serde
> > > > names.
> > > > > >>>> For example, for key and value serdes the label could be "key"
> > and
> > > > > >>>> "value". Or something similar.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Best,
> > > > > >>>> Bruno
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:25 AM Guozhang Wang <
> > wangg...@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Hello Matthias John, thanks for your comments!! Replied them
> > > > inline.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I think there are a couple open questions that I'd like to
> hear
> > > > your
> > > > > >>>>> opinions on with the context:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> a. For stores's serdes, the reason I proposed to expose a set
> > of
> > > > > serde
> > > > > >>>>> names instead of a pair of key / value serdes is for future
> > > > possible
> > > > > >>> store
> > > > > >>>>> types which may not be key-values. I admit it could just be
> > > > > >>> over-killing
> > > > > >>>>> here so if you have a strong preference on the latter, I
> could
> > be
> > > > > >>> convinced
> > > > > >>>>> to change that part but I'd want to make the original
> > motivation
> > > > > clear.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> b. I think I'm convinced that I'd just augment the `toString`
> > > > result
> > > > > >>>>> regardless of which func generated the Topology (and hence
> its
> > > > > >>>>> TopologyDescription), note this would mean that we break the
> > > > > >>> compatibility
> > > > > >>>>> of the current `toString` function. As a remedy for that, we
> > will
> > > > > also
> > > > > >>>>> expose a `toJson` function to programmatical purposes.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Guozhang
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> (1) In the new TopologyDescription output, the line for the
> > > > > >>>>>> windowed-count processor is:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Processor: myname (stores: [(myname-store, serdes:
> > > > > >>>>> [SessionWindowedSerde, FullChangeSerde])])
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> For this case, both Serdes are wrappers and user would
> > actually
> > > > only
> > > > > >>>>>> specified wrapped Serdes for the key and value. Can we do
> > > anything
> > > > > >>> about
> > > > > >>>>>> this? Otherwise, there might still be a runtime
> > > > `ClassCastException`
> > > > > >>>>>> that a user cannot easily debug.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> (2) Nit: The JavaDocs of `Processor#storeSet()` seems to be
> > > > > incorrect
> > > > > >>>>>> (it says "The names of all connected stores." -- guess it's
> > c&p
> > > > > >>> error)?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Yes! Fixed.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> (3) The KIP mentioned to add `Store#changelogTopic()`
> method,
> > > but
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>> output of `TopologyDescription#toString()` does not contain
> > it.
> > > I
> > > > > >>> think
> > > > > >>>>>> it might be good do add it, too?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Yes, that's right. I'm going to add to the example as well.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> (4) The KIP also list
> > > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-9913
> > > > > >>>>>> but it seems not to address it yet?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I actually did intent to have it addressed; the proposal
> > > includes:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> a. Return the set of source / sink nodes of a sub-topology,
> and
> > > > their
> > > > > >>>>> corresponding source / sink topics could be accessed.
> > > > > >>>>> b. Return the set of stores of a sub-topology, and their
> > > > > corresponding
> > > > > >>>>> changelog topics could be accessed.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> The reason I did not choose to just expose the set of all
> > topics
> > > > > >>> directly,
> > > > > >>>>> but indirectly, is stated in the wiki:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> "the reason we did not expose APIs for topic names directly
> is
> > > that
> > > > > for
> > > > > >>>>> source nodes, it is possible to have Pattern and for sink
> > nodes,
> > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > >>>>> possible to have topic-extractors, and hence it's better to
> let
> > > > users
> > > > > >>>>> leveraging on the lower-level APIs to construct the topic
> names
> > > > > >>>>> programmatically themselves."
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> (5) As John, I also noticed that `List<String>
> > > > Store#sedersNames()`
> > > > > is
> > > > > >>>>>> not a great API. I am not sure if I understand your reply
> > > thought.
> > > > > >>>>>> AFAIK, there is no exiting API
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> List<Serde> StoreBuilder#serdes()
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> (cf
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/trunk/streams/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/streams/state/StoreBuilder.java
> > > > > >>>>> )
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Ah yes, that's added as part of this KIP.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> (6) Atm, we return `String` type for the Serdes. Do we think
> > > it's
> > > > > >>>>>> sufficient? Just want to double check.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> The reason is that we can only get the serde-name at the time
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>> topology since it may be from config and hence there's no
> serde
> > > > > object
> > > > > >>>>> actually.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> (10) Can we avoid coupling this KIP’s behavior to the choice
> > of
> > > > > >>> ‘build’
> > > > > >>>>> method? I.e., can we return the improved description even
> when
> > > > people
> > > > > >>> just
> > > > > >>>>> call ‘build()’?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Yes, as I replied in the above comment to yours, I've changed
> > my
> > > > mind
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>> just return the augmented description no matter of the
> > function;
> > > > and
> > > > > >>> will
> > > > > >>>>> expose toJson() for future compatibilities. I've not yet
> > updated
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> wiki
> > > > > >>>>> yet.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Clearly, we need a placeholder if no serde is specified. How
> > > about
> > > > > >>>>> “unknown”, or the name of the config keys,
> > > > > >>>>> “default.key.serde”/“default.value.serde”?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I think if `build(props)` is used, we can use the name of the
> > > > > >>> configured
> > > > > >>>>> values; otherwise since we do not know the config yet we'd
> have
> > > to
> > > > > use
> > > > > >>>>> "unknown".
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I still have some deep reservation about the
> > ‘build(Parameters)’
> > > > > >>> method
> > > > > >>>>> itself. I don’t really want to side-track this conversation
> > with
> > > > all
> > > > > my
> > > > > >>>>> concerns if we can avoid it, though. It seems like
> > justification
> > > > > enough
> > > > > >>>>> that introducing dramatically different behavior based in on
> > > > > seemingly
> > > > > >>>>> minor differences in api calls will be a source of mystery
> and
> > > > > >>> complexity
> > > > > >>>>> for users.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I.e., I’m characterizing a completely different string
> format
> > as
> > > > > >>>>> “dramatically different”, as opposed to just having a
> > placeholder
> > > > > >>> string.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> (11) Regarding the wrapper serdes, I bet we can capture and
> > > print
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>> inner types as well.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Ack, I can do that.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 8:19 AM John Roesler <
> > vvcep...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hi all,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I’ve been sitting on another concern about this proposal.
> > Since
> > > > > >>> Matthias
> > > > > >>>>>> has just submitted a few questions, perhaps I can pile on
> two
> > > more
> > > > > >>> this
> > > > > >>>>>> round.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> (10) Can we avoid coupling this KIP’s behavior to the choice
> > of
> > > > > >>> ‘build’
> > > > > >>>>>> method? I.e., can we return the improved description even
> when
> > > > > people
> > > > > >>> just
> > > > > >>>>>> call ‘build()’?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Clearly, we need a placeholder if no serde is specified. How
> > > about
> > > > > >>>>>> “unknown”, or the name of the config keys,
> > > > > >>>>>> “default.key.serde”/“default.value.serde”?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I still have some deep reservation about the
> > ‘build(Parameters)’
> > > > > >>> method
> > > > > >>>>>> itself. I don’t really want to side-track this conversation
> > with
> > > > all
> > > > > >>> my
> > > > > >>>>>> concerns if we can avoid it, though. It seems like
> > justification
> > > > > >>> enough
> > > > > >>>>>> that introducing dramatically different behavior based in on
> > > > > seemingly
> > > > > >>>>>> minor differences in api calls will be a source of mystery
> and
> > > > > >>> complexity
> > > > > >>>>>> for users.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I.e., I’m characterizing a completely different string
> format
> > as
> > > > > >>>>>> “dramatically different”, as opposed to just having a
> > > placeholder
> > > > > >>> string.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> (11) Regarding the wrapper serdes, I bet we can capture and
> > > print
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>> inner types as well.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Thanks again for the KIP!
> > > > > >>>>>> -John
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020, at 19:10, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> Guozhang,
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> thanks for the KIP!
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Couple of comments/questions.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> -Matthias
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On 4/25/20 1:24 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi John,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the review! Replied inline.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:09 PM John Roesler <
> > > > vvcep...@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Guozhang,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP! I took a quick look, and I'm really
> > happy
> > > > to
> > > > > >>> see
> > > > > >>>>>> this
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> underway.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Some quick questions:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> 1. Can you elaborate on the reason that stores just
> have a
> > > > list
> > > > > of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> serdes, whereas
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> other components have an explicit key/value serde?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> This is because of the existing API "List<Serde>
> > > > > >>>>>> StoreBuilder#serdes()".
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Although both of its implementations would return two
> serdes
> > > > (one
> > > > > >>> for
> > > > > >>>>>> key
> > > > > >>>>>>>> and one for value), the API is more general to return a
> > list.
> > > > And
> > > > > >>>>>> hence the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> TopologyDescription#Store which gets them directly from
> > > > > >>> StoreBuilder is
> > > > > >>>>>>>> exposing the same API.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1.5. A side-effect of this seems to be that the
> > > string-formatted
> > > > > >>> serde
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> description is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> different, depending on whether the serdes are listed on
> a
> > > > store
> > > > > >>> or a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> topic. Just an
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> observation.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Yes I agree. I think we can probably change the
> "List<Serde>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> StoreBuilder#serdes()" signature as well (which would be a
> > > > > breaking
> > > > > >>>>>> change
> > > > > >>>>>>>> though, so we should do that via deprecation), but I'm a
> bit
> > > > > >>> concerned
> > > > > >>>>>>>> since it was designed for future store types which may not
> > be
> > > of
> > > > > K-V
> > > > > >>>>>> format
> > > > > >>>>>>>> any more.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> 2. You mentioned the key compatibility concern in my
> mind.
> > We
> > > > do
> > > > > >>> know
> > > > > >>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> such
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> use cases exist. Namely, our own tests and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://zz85.github.io/kafka-streams-viz/
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if we can add a forward-compatible
> > > > machine-readable
> > > > > >>>>>> format
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> to the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> KIP, so that even though we must break the parsers right
> > now,
> > > > > maybe
> > > > > >>>>>> we'll
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> never
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> have to break them again. For example, I'm thinking of a
> > > > "toJson"
> > > > > >>>>>> method
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> on the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> TopologyDescription that formats the entire topology
> > > > description
> > > > > >>> as a
> > > > > >>>>>> json
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> string.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Yes, I also have concerns about that (as described in the
> > > > > >>> compatibility
> > > > > >>>>>>>> section). One proposal I have is that we ONLY augment the
> > > > toString
> > > > > >>>>>> result
> > > > > >>>>>>>> if the TopologyDescription is from a Topology built from
> > > > > >>>>>>>> `StreamsBuilder#build(Properties)`, which is only recently
> > > added
> > > > > and
> > > > > >>>>>> hence
> > > > > >>>>>>>> most old usage would not get the benefits of it. But after
> > > > > thinking
> > > > > >>>>>> about
> > > > > >>>>>>>> this a bit more, I'm now more inclined to just always
> > augment
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>> string,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> and also add a `toJson` method in addition to `toString`.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks again!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> -John
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020, at 00:26, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Hello folks,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I'd like to start the discussion for KIP-598:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=148648762
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> It proposes to augment the topology description's
> > > sub-classes
> > > > > with
> > > > > >>>>>> store
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and source / sink serde information. Let me know what
> you
> > > > think,
> > > > > >>>>>> thanks!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Attachments:
> > > > > >>>>>>> * signature.asc
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>> -- Guozhang
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> -- Guozhang
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -- Guozhang
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
> >
>
--
-- Guozhang
