Hi Jorge,
Thank you for sticking through this. I have one small remark and one small
clarification; assuming you agree with me on them then I'm ready to vote on
the KIP.
1. InsertField: The "field.on.missing.parent" and "field.on.existing.field"
docs both mention a permitted value of "ingore"; this should be "ignore",
right?
2. InsertField: The examples are still missing the "field.style" property
from the configurations. They should all include the property
"transforms.smt1.field.style": "nested", correct?
Thanks again for working through this, and congratulations on a
well-written KIP!
Cheers,
Chris
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 2:06 PM Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya <
quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Chris! I apply these improvements to the KIP, let me know how it
> looks now.
>
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 at 23:43, Chris Egerton <fearthecel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jorge,
> >
> > Wow, those examples are great! A few more remarks, but I think we're
> > getting close:
> >
> > 1. The examples differ across SMTs with the name of the newly-introduced
> > style property; some of them use "field.style", and some use
> > "fields.style". I think for consistency's sake we should stick with just
> > "field.style"; otherwise it could be painful for users to have to
> remember
> > which to use.
> >
>
> Great catch. Agree, I fixed the config names to `field.style`.
>
>
> >
> > 2. Some of the examples are off:
> > - TimestampConverter: the input in the second example ("when field names
> > include dots") doesn't contain a field with a dotted name
> > - ValueToKey: the config in the third example ("when field names include
> > dots") should probably use "parent..child.k2" as the
> > "transforms.smt1.fields" property
> >
>
> Fixed. Thanks!
>
>
> >
> > 3. RE changes to InsertField:
> > - The InsertField SMT should also come with the new "field.style"
> property
> > in order to preserve backwards compatibility, right? I don't see it
> > included in the example configs for that one, just want to make sure
> > - I don't know of any cases where we use snake_case for property names in
> > Kafka; we should probably use "on.missing.parent" and "on.existing.field"
> > as the new property names for InsertField.
> > - Why is the "on_existing_field" (or "on.existing.field") property only
> > applied when the field style is nested? Couldn't it be useful for
> > non-nested fields as well?
> >
>
> Great points! I have applied these suggestions to the KIP.
>
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 12:40 PM Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya <
> > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Again, great feedback Chris. Much appreciated.
> > > Added my comments below:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 20:22, Chris Egerton <fearthecel...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Jorge,
> > > >
> > > > Looking good! I have a few comments left but all but one or two are
> > > minor.
> > > >
> > > > 1. The motivation section states "This KIP is aimed to include
> support
> > > for
> > > > nested structures on the existing SMTs... and to include the
> > abstractions
> > > > to reuse this in future SMTs". A good implementation of this KIP will
> > > > definitely isolate reusable logic into a separate abstraction that
> can
> > be
> > > > easily pulled in to the SMTs we want to add nested field support to,
> > but
> > > > unless we plan on making this kind of abstraction publicly available
> as
> > > > some kind of utility method or class that external SMT developers can
> > > > leverage, we can probably leave this part out as it's more of an
> > > > implementation detail.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Make sense, will leave this out of the KIP.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. The Cast example is a little misleading, isn't it? It demonstrates
> > the
> > > > escape syntax for fields with dot literals in their names, but it
> > doesn't
> > > > demonstrate a way to actually use the Cast (or any other) SMT to
> > access a
> > > > nested field in a record, which is the whole point of the KIP. I like
> > the
> > > > example of escape syntax but we should probably also add one for
> nested
> > > > field access.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Agree. I have added examples to each SMT to be more clear about how it
> > > affects each function
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. With the InsertField SMT, I'm wondering what the specific behavior
> > > will
> > > > be when some or all of the "middle layer" nested fields are missing.
> > For
> > > > example, if I have a record with a value of { "k1": "v1 } and I apply
> > > > InsertField with topic.field = n1.n2.n3.topic, what will happen? Will
> > the
> > > > updated value become { "k1": "v1", "n1": { "n2": { "n3": "topic" }}},
> > > will
> > > > an exception be thrown, or something else? This seems analogous to
> the
> > > > command line mkdir command, which (at least on some operating
> systems)
> > > > fails by default if you try to create a new nested directory where
> > > anything
> > > > but the last element in the path doesn't exist, but can be invoked
> > with a
> > > > flag that instructs it to go ahead and create all levels of nested
> > > > directory instead. I'm leaning on the side of "just create
> everything"
> > > but
> > > > would be interested in your thoughts, and either way, we should
> > probably
> > > > make sure the intended behavior is well-defined before voting.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is an interesting case, thanks for catching this!
> > > The default behavior I see is to create parents if they are missing and
> > > overwrite fields
> > > if they already exist.
> > > I'm planning to include the following two flags if there is a need to
> > > overwrite this behavior:
> > > - `on_missing_parent` = (CREATE|IGNORE), default=CREATE
> > > - `on_existing_field` = (OVERWRITE|IGNORE), default=OVERWRITE
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 4. Similarly, what will the behavior be if any of the field elements
> > > > specified with InsertField already exist in the record value? Will we
> > > just
> > > > overwrite them? What's the behavior of InsertField today under
> similar
> > > > circumstances?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The current behavior is to overwrite the value.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 4:15 PM Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya <
> > > > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Chris! Much appreciated all the feedback here.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. You nailed it setting the design goal here: "it shouldn't be
> > > > impossible
> > > > > to use this new feature for any field name, no matter how
> convoluted.
> > > > It's
> > > > > fine if edge cases introduce difficulty (such as less-readable
> > > > > configurations), but it's not fine if they can't be addressed at
> > all."
> > > > > Back to the previous proposals (using only dots as separators) we
> > have
> > > 2
> > > > > alternatives:
> > > > > 1. escaping with backslashes
> > > > > 2. escaping with dots itself
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll lean for alternative 2, as you proposed before. Feels to me
> that
> > > > > backslashes have more potential to lead to confusion in JSON
> configs,
> > > and
> > > > > CSV seems like a good precedent to use the same character to escape
> > > > itself.
> > > > > KIP is updated to reflect this.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Thanks! I'll add an example, and stick with the current approach
> > > > > defining the style per individual transform configuration.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Yes, thanks! KIP updated.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Of course. KIP updated.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 at 21:59, Chris Egerton <
> fearthecel...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jorge,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for addressing my comments; the KIP looks up-to-date and
> > > pretty
> > > > > > readable now, and the rejected alternatives section does a great
> > job
> > > of
> > > > > > outlining the discussion so far and providing context for anyone
> > else
> > > > who
> > > > > > might want to join in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Thoughts on choice of delimiter:
> > > > > > - I like the optimization for simple cases, but I think the new
> > > > proposal
> > > > > is
> > > > > > a little too restrictive. What if there's a field whose name
> > contains
> > > > all
> > > > > > of the permitted options (currently just ".", ",", and "/")?
> > > > > > - If we expand the set of permitted delimiters to allow for any
> > > > > > single-character string, configuration complexity will increase
> and
> > > > > > readability may decrease
> > > > > > - Also worth pointing out that there is some convention for
> > doubling
> > > a
> > > > > > delimiter character as an escape mechanism with formats like CSV
> > [1]
> > > > > > - Overall I think we may be approaching the saturation point for
> > > > > productive
> > > > > > discussion on delimiter syntax so I don't want to spend too much
> > more
> > > > of
> > > > > > your time on it. I think the one point I'd like to leave for now
> is
> > > > that
> > > > > it
> > > > > > shouldn't be impossible to use this new feature for any field
> name,
> > > no
> > > > > > matter how convoluted. It's fine if edge cases introduce
> difficulty
> > > > (such
> > > > > > as less-readable configurations), but it's not fine if they can't
> > be
> > > > > > addressed at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2.
> > > > > > The configuration style where you define "transforms.field.style"
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > connector config, and then this applies to all SMTs for the
> > > connector,
> > > > is
> > > > > > very interesting. However, it doesn't follow convention for
> > existing
> > > > > SMTs.
> > > > > > Right now, if you want to configure an SMT, you define its name
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > connector config (for example, "transforms": "smt1"), and then
> > define
> > > > all
> > > > > > of the properties for that SMT in the connector config using a
> > > > > namespacing
> > > > > > mechanism specific to that SMT (for example,
> > "transforms.smt1.prop1":
> > > > > > "val1"). That SMT then sees only the properties defined in that
> > > > > namespace,
> > > > > > with the prefix stripped (for example, "prop1": "val1") in its
> > > > configure
> > > > > > [2] [3] method.
> > > > > > If we want to continue to follow this convention, then instead of
> > > > > > specifying "transforms.field.style" in a connector config, we
> would
> > > > > expect
> > > > > > users to configure "transforms.<name>.field.style", for each SMT
> > that
> > > > > they
> > > > > > want to configure a field style for. This would require more work
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > part of the user, but would be simpler to reason about and easier
> > to
> > > > > > implement.
> > > > > > If we want to explore an alternative where users can specify
> global
> > > > > > properties that apply to all transforms in a connector config,
> then
> > > the
> > > > > > semantics for this need to be defined in the KIP. This would have
> > to
> > > > > > include whether this will apply only for the special case of the
> > > > > > "field.style" and possibly "field.separator" properties or if it
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > available more generally for other properties, whether it will
> > apply
> > > > only
> > > > > > for the SMTs outlined in the KIP or if the "field.style" and
> > possibly
> > > > > > "field.separator" properties would also be passed into custom
> SMTs
> > so
> > > > > that
> > > > > > they could choose to act on them if applicable, how edge cases
> like
> > > > > having
> > > > > > an SMT named "field" in your connector config would be handled,
> > etc.
> > > > > > Either way, it might help to have an example in the KIP outlining
> > how
> > > > one
> > > > > > of the to-be-augmented SMTs can be configured with this new
> feature
> > > > and a
> > > > > > before/after of how a record value would be transformed with that
> > > > > > configuration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. The docstring for the "transforms.field.style" property
> mentions
> > > > that
> > > > > > the permitted values are "plain" and "nested", but then describes
> > > > > behavior
> > > > > > with a value of "root". Should that be "plain" instead?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. The docstring for the "transforms.field.separator" property
> > > > > exclusively
> > > > > > mentions structs, but the feature is intended to work with maps
> as
> > > > well.
> > > > > > Can we update it to reflect this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > References:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] - https://stackoverflow.com/a/17808731
> > > > > > [2] -
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/7243facb8d69a7252e6b9556b5eaee13e41bab7f/connect/api/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/connect/transforms/Transformation.java#L30
> > > > > > [3] -
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/7243facb8d69a7252e6b9556b5eaee13e41bab7f/clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/common/Configurable.java#L26-L29
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 1:32 PM Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya <
> > > > > > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, Chris!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. I'd argue "this..field.child" could be harder to grasp than
> > > > > > > "this.field/child" + separator: "/".
> > > > > > > Even though this represents additional information, it follows
> a
> > > > > similar
> > > > > > > approach as the "Flatten#delimeter" configuration.
> > > > > > > I want to give the separator approach another try, so I have
> > > updated
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > KIP with the separator proposal, sticking to only 2
> alternatives
> > > that
> > > > > > > should hopefully cover most scenarios.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Agree. KIP has been updated with this improvement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. You're right. I have updated this section accordingly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4. Good catch! I've replaced it with `DropHeaders`.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looking forward to your feedback.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Jorge.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 21:33, Chris Egerton <
> > > fearthecel...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Jorge,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Looking good! Got a few more thoughts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Sorry to revisit this, but I think we may want to adopt a
> > > > slightly
> > > > > > > > different escape syntax style. Backslashes are great, but
> since
> > > > > they're
> > > > > > > > already used by JSON, using them as an escape sequence in
> field
> > > > > > notation
> > > > > > > > would also lead to some pretty ugly connector configs. Anyone
> > > who's
> > > > > had
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > write regular expressions with backslashes in Java is
> probably
> > > > > already
> > > > > > > > familiar with this:
> > "this\\\\.is\\\\.not\\\\.very\\\\.readable".
> > > > What
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > you think about using the dot character to escape itself? In
> > > other
> > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > to access a single field named "this.field", instead of using
> > the
> > > > > > syntax
> > > > > > > > "this\.field" (which in JSON would have to be expressed as
> > > > > > > "this\\.field"),
> > > > > > > > we could use "this..field", and for a single field named
> > > > > "this\field",
> > > > > > > > instead of using the syntax "this\\field" (or, in JSON,
> > > > > > "this\\\\field"),
> > > > > > > > we could use "this\field" (or, in JSON, "this\\field").
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. Could you flesh out the details on the new "field.style"
> > > > property,
> > > > > > > > including the type, default value, importance, and a
> > preliminary
> > > > > > > docstring?
> > > > > > > > See
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-618%3A+Exactly-Once+Support+for+Source+Connectors#KIP618:ExactlyOnceSupportforSourceConnectors-Newproperties
> > > > > > > > for an example.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. Is the "Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan"
> > > section
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > accurate after the latest update? Seems like it's still
> written
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > assumption that nested field syntax will be hardcoded or
> > opt-in,
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > IIUC
> > > > > > > > isn't the case anymore.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 4. Nit: The "These SMTs do not require nested structure
> > support"
> > > > > > section
> > > > > > > > mentions a "Drop" SMT. I think this may be referring to the
> > > > Confluent
> > > > > > > Drop
> > > > > > > > SMT, which isn't a part of Apache Kafka. Should we drop (heh)
> > > that
> > > > > SMT
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > the list? Or perhaps just replace it with "DropHeaders",
> which
> > is
> > > > > > > currently
> > > > > > > > missing from the list and shouldn't require any nested-field
> > > > related
> > > > > > > > updates?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:12 PM Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya
> <
> > > > > > > > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you, Chris! and sorry for the delayed response.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please, find my comments below:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 17:34, Chris Egerton
> > > > > > > <chr...@confluent.io.invalid
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Jorge,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! I'd love to see support for nested
> > fields
> > > > > added
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > out-of-the-box SMTs provided with Connect. Here are my
> > > initial
> > > > > > > > thoughts:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. I agree that there's a case to be made for expanding
> > > > > HoistField
> > > > > > > > with a
> > > > > > > > > > new config property for identifying a nested,
> to-be-hoisted
> > > > > field,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > example in the KIP doesn't really demonstrate why this
> > would
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > valuable. I
> > > > > > > > > > think it'd be helpful to expand the example to add other
> > > fields
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > show how adding nested field support enables users to
> > hoist a
> > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > > > without dropping other fields from the value. Maybe
> > something
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > this:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > source = nested.val
> > > > > > > > > > field = line
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > value (before):
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > "nested": {
> > > > > > > > > > "val": 42,
> > > > > > > > > > "other val": 96
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > value (after):
> > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > "nested": {
> > > > > > > > > > "line": {
> > > > > > > > > > "val": 42,
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > "other val": 96
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Nit: I think "source" is a little strange for the new
> > > > > HoistField
> > > > > > > > > > property name. Maybe "hoisted" or "hoisted.field" would
> be
> > > more
> > > > > > > > > > descriptive?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > About 1. and 2.:
> > > > > > > > > Agree. The example for this SMT is updated and have added
> the
> > > > > > `hoisted`
> > > > > > > > > configuration.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3. Is there a reasonable use case for expanding Flatten
> to
> > be
> > > > > able
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > flatten specific fields? My understanding is that it's
> > mostly
> > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > writing to systems like databases that don't support
> nested
> > > > > values
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > require everything to be a flat list of key-value pairs.
> > > Being
> > > > > able
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > flatten a nested field wouldn't provide any advantage for
> > > that
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > > case.
> > > > > > > > > > Are there other cases where it would?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 4. I don't think we should unconditionally change the
> > default
> > > > > > > delimiter
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > Flatten. It's a backwards-incompatible, breaking change
> > that
> > > > > could
> > > > > > > > cause
> > > > > > > > > > headaches for users. It might be reasonable to change the
> > > > default
> > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > dynamically based on whether the user has specified a
> value
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > "field"
> > > > > > > > > > property, but considering the motivation for changing the
> > > > default
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > it creates conflicts with the to-be-introduced nested
> field
> > > > > syntax
> > > > > > > > (which
> > > > > > > > > > could arise with downstream SMTs regardless of whether
> the
> > > user
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > explicitly configured Flatten with the "field"
> property), I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > this would be too useful either. I have some thoughts
> below
> > > on
> > > > > how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > handle possible conflicts between names with dots in
> their
> > > > names
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > dotted
> > > > > > > > > > syntax for nested field references that should hopefully
> > make
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > unnecessary.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Fair enough. With the support for nested fields in other
> > SMTs,
> > > > > > Flatten
> > > > > > > > > could stay as it is.
> > > > > > > > > This removes the need for (4) changing Flatten config as
> > well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 5. I think it's fine to expand ExtractField to support
> > nested
> > > > > > > notation,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > it might be worth noting in the rejected alternatives
> > section
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > isn't strictly necessary since you can replace any single
> > > > > > invocation
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > that SMT that uses nested field notation with multiple
> > > > > invocations
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > that use non-nested notation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Agree. Adding it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 6. Nit: "RegerRouter" should be "RegexRouter" in the list
> > of
> > > > SMTs
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > not require nested structure support.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ack. Fixing it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 7. It may be rare for dots in field names to occur in the
> > > wild
> > > > > > > > (although
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > wouldn't be so certain of this), but unless we want to
> > > inflict
> > > > > > > > headaches
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > users of Flatten, I think we're going to have to think
> > about
> > > > > > > conflicts
> > > > > > > > > > between dotted notation and non-nested fields whose names
> > > > contain
> > > > > > > > dots. I
> > > > > > > > > > don't think this is actually such a bad thing, though. I
> > > agree
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > dotted
> > > > > > > > > > notation is intuitive and pretty commonplace (in tools
> like
> > > jq,
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > example), so I'd like it if we could stick to it. What
> > about
> > > > > > > > introducing
> > > > > > > > > > escape syntax, using a backslash? That way, users could
> > > > > > disambiguate
> > > > > > > > > > between "this.field" (which would refer to the nested
> field
> > > > > "field"
> > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > > > the top-level "this" field), and "this\.field" (which
> would
> > > > refer
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > field named "this.field"). Like with most languages that
> > use
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > backslash
> > > > > > > > > > for escape sequences, it could also be used to escape
> > itself,
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > event
> > > > > > > > > > that a field name contains a backslash. I think this is
> > more
> > > > > > > intuitive
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > simpler than, e.g., adding a new config property to
> toggle
> > > the
> > > > > > > > delimiter
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > be used when parsing nested field references.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I like this approach. Adding to the KIP.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 8. I don't think we can unconditionally turn this feature
> > on.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > risk
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > breaking existing pipelines (especially ones that
> involve,
> > > for
> > > > > > > > example, a
> > > > > > > > > > combination of the Flatten and Cast SMTs) is pretty
> high. I
> > > > think
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > should be an opt-in feature, at least until the next
> major
> > > > > release.
> > > > > > > One
> > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > we could accomplish this is by introducing a new
> > > "field.style"
> > > > > > (name
> > > > > > > > > > obviously subject to change) property with values of
> > "plain"
> > > > > > > (default)
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > "nested". If set to "plain" then the current non-nested
> > > > behavior
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > used,
> > > > > > > > > > and if set to "nested", then the proposed nested behavior
> > is.
> > > > We
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > consider updating the default value to "nested" in a
> future
> > > > major
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > (or even codify that plan in this KIP, if there's enough
> > > > support
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > it).
> > > > > > > > > > This would also leave the door open for adding recursive
> > > > support
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > SMTs
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the future by adding a permitted value of "recursive".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 9. One of the linked tickets in the "Motivation" section,
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-10640, has
> an
> > > open
> > > > > PR
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > KIP
> > > > > > > > > > that propose adding recursive support to some SMTs. Have
> > you
> > > > > > > considered
> > > > > > > > > > this type of functionality for your KIP? Or is your aim
> to
> > > > stick
> > > > > > > solely
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > nested field support?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I like the `field.style` configuration flag approach.
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for pointing out the `recursive` approach. Will add
> > > > `nested`
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > moment, let's check the demand for `recursive` to consider
> it
> > > as
> > > > > part
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > this or another KIP.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have added the following on the KIP:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > Future KIPs could extend this support for:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Recursive notation: name a field and apply it to all
> fields
> > > > > across
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > schema matching that name.
> > > > > > > > > - Access to arrays: Adding `[]` notation to represent
> access
> > to
> > > > > > arrays
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > applying SMTs to fields within an array.
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Chris
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 1:23 PM Jorge Esteban Quilcate
> > Otoya <
> > > > > > > > > > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dev team,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start a new discussion thread on Kafka
> > Connect
> > > > > > KIP-821:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-821%3A+Connect+Transforms+support+for+nested+structures
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This KIP is aimed to include support for nested
> > structures
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > SMTs — where this make sense.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Jorge.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
