Thanks Chris! I have updated the KIP to include this fix. I will keep the array as a potential improvement at the moment, and out of the scope of this KIP.
Thanks, Jorge. On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 at 23:19, Chris Egerton <fearthecel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jorge, > > Apologies for the long delay, had my own KIP-related work to focus on. > > I think it's fine to include array accesses but it's not a blocker. I'm +1 > either way. On that front though, I think the MaskField section might need > to be updated as it still mentions arrays and deep-scan? > > Cheers, > > Chris > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 4:38 PM Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya < > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > I have update the KIP to the previous state voted, including the > > configuration change from `field.style` to `field.syntax.version`. > > > > I'll bump the vote thread as well to see if there's agreement on adding > > this feature to Connect. > > > > Cheers, > > Jorge. > > > > On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 23:02, Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya < > > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Thanks, Chris. Your feedback is much appreciated! > > > > > > I see how the current proposal might be underestimating some edge > cases. > > > I'm happy to move the design for deep-scan and multi-values to future > > > developments related with this KIP and reduce its scope, though open > for > > > more feedback. > > > > > > Also, just to be sure, are you proposing also to not include array > access > > > at this stage? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jorge. > > > > > > On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 at 03:20, Chris Egerton <fearthecel...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Jorge, > > >> > > >> I've done some more thinking and I hate to say it, but I think the > > syntax > > >> does need to be expanded. Right now it's clear what "a.b" refers to > and > > >> what "a..b" refers to, but what about "a...b"? Is that referring to > > >> subfield ".b" of field "a", or subfield "b" of field "a."? This gets > > even > > >> more complicated when thinking about fields whose names are > exclusively > > >> made up of dots. > > >> > > >> I'm also a little hesitant to mix the cases of multi-value paths and > > deep > > >> scans. What if you only want to access one subfield deep for an SMT, > > >> instead of recursing through all the children of a given field? It's > > akin > > >> to the distinction between * and ** with file globbing patterns, and > > there > > >> could be a substantial performance difference if you have > heavily-nested > > >> fields. > > >> > > >> Ultimately, I think that if the proposed "field.syntax.version" > property > > >> sits well with people, it might be better to reduce the scope of the > KIP > > >> back to the original proposal and just focus on adding support for > > >> explicitly-specified nested values, with no multi-value paths > > whatsoever, > > >> knowing that we have an easy way to introduce new syntax and features > in > > >> the future. (We could probably leave the "a...b" case for that next > > >> version > > >> too.) > > >> > > >> I was a huge fan of this KIP before we started trying to address more > > >> complex use cases, and although I don't want to write those off, I > think > > >> we > > >> may have bitten off more than we can chew in time for the 3.3.0 > release > > >> and > > >> would hate to see this KIP get delayed as a result. > > >> > > >> I'd be really curious to hear from Joshua and Tom on this front, > though. > > >> Is > > >> it acceptable to move more incrementally here and settle on the syntax > > >> version property as our means of introducing new features, or is it > > >> preferable to implement things monolithically and try to get > everything > > >> (or > > >> at least, as much as possible) right the first time? > > >> > > >> Thanks again for your continued effort on this KIP! > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> > > >> Chris > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 5:41 PM Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya < > > >> quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Thanks, Chris! > > >> > > > >> > Please, find my comments below: > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 04:39, Chris Egerton <fearthecel...@gmail.com > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Jorge, > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks! Sorry for the delay; here are my thoughts: > > >> > > > > >> > > 1. Under the "Accessing multiple values by deep-scan" header it's > > >> stated > > >> > > that "If deep-scan is used, it must have only one field after the > > >> > asterisk > > >> > > level.". However, in example 3 for the Cast SMT and other examples > > for > > >> > > other SMTs, the spec contains a field of "*.child.k2", which > appears > > >> to > > >> > > have two fields after the asterisk level. I may be > misunderstanding > > >> the > > >> > > proposal, but it seems like the two contradict each other. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks for catching this. I have clarified it by removing this > > >> restriction. > > >> > Also, have extended the deep-scan scenarios. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > 2. I'm a little unclear on why we need the special handling for > > arrays > > >> > > where, for an array field "a", the field name "a" can be treated > as > > >> > either > > >> > > the array itself, or every element in the array. Is there a reason > > we > > >> > can't > > >> > > use the field name "a.*" to handle the latter case, and "a" to > > handle > > >> the > > >> > > former? > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Agree, this is confusing. I like the `a.*` approach to access array > > >> items. > > >> > I have added this to the proposal. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > 3. How would a user specify that they'd like to access a field > with > > >> the > > >> > > literal name "*"? > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Good one. I'm proposing an approach similar to how it's proposed to > > >> escape > > >> > dots, with a double-asterisk. Curious on your thoughts around this. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > 4. For the Cast SMT, do you think it might bite some people if > > fields > > >> > that > > >> > > can't be cast correctly are silently ignored? I'm imagining the > case > > >> > where > > >> > > none of the fields in a multi-path expression can be cast > correctly > > >> and > > >> > it > > >> > > ends up eating half of someone's day to track down why their SMT > > isn't > > >> > > doing anything. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > If I understand correctly, this challenge could be relevant across > > SMTs. > > >> > At the moment, most/all? SMTs just silently ignore. > > >> > Was thinking about adding a flag `field.on.path.not.found` to either > > >> ignore > > >> > or fail when no paths are found. What do your think? > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > 5. For the ExtractField and ValueToKey SMTs, what happens if a > > >> deep-scan > > >> > > field name is used, but only one field is found? Is the resulting > > >> field > > >> > > still an array, or is it just the single field that was found? > (FWIW > > >> I'm > > >> > > leaning towards keeping it an array just to keep schemas > consistent > > >> in a > > >> > > pipeline in case the number of fields found fluctuates across > > >> records.) > > >> > > > > >> > > Agree. Will clarify that an array is always produced even for 1 > or 0 > > >> > fields are found. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > 6. (Nit) For the HeaderFrom SMT, it's stated that "As this SMT > > affects > > >> > only > > >> > > existing fields, additional configurations will not be required.". > > >> Given > > >> > > the new "field.syntax.version" property, this part should probably > > be > > >> > > removed. > > >> > > > > >> > Agree. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > 7. Is recursive descent intentionally excluded? That was an > > important > > >> > part > > >> > > of Joshua's KIP and his feedback on this KIP; I think it's worth > > >> pursuing > > >> > > if we can. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > My understanding from Joshua's feedback is that by including support > > for > > >> > deep-scan, we are already covering the recursive functionality. > > Though, > > >> I > > >> > may be missing something. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > Cheers, > > >> > > > > >> > > Chris > > >> > > > > >> > > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:49 AM Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya < > > >> > > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, Chris! > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I have updated the KIP with the rejected alternatives updated. > > >> Also, I > > >> > > have > > >> > > > drafted the support for arrays and deep scans as part of the > > >> proposed > > >> > > > notation to make it more complete, even though these can be > > >> implemented > > >> > > in > > >> > > > multiple PRs. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Looking forward to your feedback. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Cheers, > > >> > > > Jorge. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Sat, 21 May 2022 at 17:39, Chris Egerton < > > >> fearthecel...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Hi Jorge, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I really appreciate the effort you've made to simplify the > > syntax > > >> and > > >> > > > > feature set of a JSONPath-based approach as much as possible. > > I'm > > >> > still > > >> > > > > hesitant to continue with it, though. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 1. The syntax is much less friendly. Just compare > > >> "top.mid.bottom" to > > >> > > > > "$['top']['mid']['bottom']"... not everyone uses JSONPath or > > even > > >> > JSON, > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > the learning curve for the former is going to be steeper. The > > >> > examples > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > the new KIP draft you published demonstrate this pretty well, > > and > > >> > this > > >> > > is > > >> > > > > without diving into the details of what escape syntax would > look > > >> > like. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 2. The three new major features that this syntax adds (array > > >> > accesses, > > >> > > > deep > > >> > > > > scans, and multi-value paths) could all be added pretty easily > > to > > >> the > > >> > > dot > > >> > > > > notation syntax without introducing brackets and dollar signs. > > >> Array > > >> > > > > accesses can be described using the same syntax as struct/map > > >> field > > >> > > > access, > > >> > > > > deep scans can be described using '*', and multi-value paths > can > > >> be > > >> > > > > described by referencing the name of a field that's expected > to > > >> have > > >> > > > > children. These are all top-of-the-head ideas and can probably > > be > > >> > > > refined, > > >> > > > > but hopefully they demonstrate that we can keep the syntax > > simple > > >> > > without > > >> > > > > sacrificing features. Of course, the question of leaving room > > for > > >> > > future > > >> > > > > features might arise... given that these are the > out-of-the-box > > >> SMTs > > >> > > that > > >> > > > > are likely to be the first that many people encounter, I'd err > > on > > >> the > > >> > > > side > > >> > > > > of simplicity and a gentle learning curve; if people need to > get > > >> more > > >> > > out > > >> > > > > of transforms, the option to implement their own is still > there. > > >> If > > >> > we > > >> > > > can > > >> > > > > address 95% of use cases with something easy to use, it's not > > >> worth > > >> > > > making > > >> > > > > the feature harder for everyone to use just to accommodate the > > >> > > remaining > > >> > > > > 5%. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 3. The advantage of leveraging an existing syntax is twofold: > > >> users > > >> > who > > >> > > > are > > >> > > > > already familiar with that syntax don't need to learn a new > > >> syntax, > > >> > and > > >> > > > > maintainers of the syntax get to leverage existing libraries > and > > >> > > > > documentation for the syntax. With the current proposal, > reusing > > >> > > > libraries > > >> > > > > is off the table, which means that we're going to have to > parse > > >> this > > >> > > > > ourselves (including all the escape syntax edge cases), and we > > >> won't > > >> > be > > >> > > > > able to automatically leverage new features added to that > > syntax. > > >> And > > >> > > > given > > >> > > > > how stripped-down the syntax is in comparison to full > JSONPath, > > >> > there's > > >> > > > > still going to be a learning curve for users who are already > > >> familiar > > >> > > > with > > >> > > > > it, and we'll still have to document how Connect's variant of > > >> > JSONPath > > >> > > > > works either instead of or in addition to just linking to a > > >> > > > well-maintained > > >> > > > > third-party docs site. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On the topic of "field.path" and "include.path" vs. > > >> "field.style", I > > >> > > > > actually think that a single property per SMT is cleaner and > > >> simpler. > > >> > > > > Allowing users to mix and match styles within the same SMT > > config > > >> > seems > > >> > > > > like a recipe for confusion, and with a single property that > > >> dictates > > >> > > > field > > >> > > > > syntax behavior, we leave the door open to change the default > > at a > > >> > > later > > >> > > > > date. We could even fully remove support for plain field > > notation > > >> at > > >> > > some > > >> > > > > point and still be able to retain the simple property names of > > >> > "field", > > >> > > > > "include", etc. instead of forcing people to use "field.path" > > and > > >> the > > >> > > > like. > > >> > > > > That said, the term "field.style" and the permitted values > might > > >> be a > > >> > > > > little ambiguous. One alternative, though a little > heavy-handed, > > >> is > > >> > to > > >> > > > > change it to "field.syntax.version" with permitted values of > > "V1" > > >> > > > (default, > > >> > > > > equivalent to "field.style = plain") and "V2" (equivalent to > > >> > > > "field.style = > > >> > > > > nested"). This would leave us room in the future to make > further > > >> > > changes > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > the syntax without having to come up with new names, although > it > > >> does > > >> > > > > sacrifice a little bit in that the permitted values are no > > longer > > >> > > > > self-describing. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Cheers, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Chris > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 4:51 PM Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya < > > >> > > > > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you all for your feedback, and sorry for the long wait > > >> for a > > >> > > > reply. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I would like to explore the idea of JSONPath-inspired/subset > > >> > > notation a > > >> > > > > bit > > >> > > > > > further: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > It will need to be a much-reduced version of JSONPath: > > >> > > > > > - No full support for JsonPath therefore an additional > > >> dependency. > > >> > > > > > - All paths must start with '$' > > >> > > > > > - No functions support or other operators allowed. > > >> > > > > > - JsonPath dotted and square-bracket notations can be > > supported > > >> to > > >> > > > avoid > > >> > > > > > escaping dots or other characters: `$a.b.c` and > > `$['a.b']['c']` > > >> - > > >> > or > > >> > > we > > >> > > > > > could only support the second one as it's more complete. > > >> > > > > > - Add support for arrays with `[<integer>]`, e.g. `$a.[1].b` > > >> > > > > > - Add support for multiple-value paths using array access > > >> `$a.*.b` > > >> > or > > >> > > > > deep > > >> > > > > > scan `$a..b`. > > >> > > > > > - Some SMTs that will benefit from this: `MaskField`, > > >> `Cast`, > > >> > > > > > `ReplaceField`. > > >> > > > > > - We could introduce a `path[s]` config under the current > > >> > > > configurations > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > apply this feature so no compatibility issues are > introduced: > > >> e.g. > > >> > > > > > `field.path`, `fields.paths`, `exclude.path`. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > With these, 100, 101, 102, and 103 will be effectively > > solved. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > The main challenge that I see at the moment is that by being > > >> JSON > > >> > > > > > path-like, there may be some edge cases that I can't foresee > > at > > >> the > > >> > > > > moment, > > >> > > > > > that could make this hard to implement, test, and maintain > in > > >> the > > >> > > long > > >> > > > > run. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I'll appreciate your feedback on how this JSONPath-based > > >> > alternative > > >> > > > > > compares to the dotted notation initially proposed, and if > it > > >> > matches > > >> > > > > your > > >> > > > > > feedback. > > >> > > > > > I have drafted a copy of the KIP to change the examples to > > >> JSONPath > > >> > > > > > approach and validate some differences: > > >> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/9BihD > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > About 104. I agreed with Chris. We can handle this as part > of > > a > > >> new > > >> > > > KIP. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > Jorge. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 at 17:27, Chris Egerton < > > >> > fearthecel...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi Joshua, > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I have a few reservations about using JsonPath notation > > here. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 1. There's likely to be a substantial performance penalty > > for > > >> > > > > converting > > >> > > > > > > between the Kafka Connect format and something that a > > JsonPath > > >> > > > library > > >> > > > > > > would understand. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 2. The complexity of the feature will be significantly > > >> higher. It > > >> > > > will > > >> > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > harder to test, document, and implement. There will be > many > > >> more > > >> > > edge > > >> > > > > > cases > > >> > > > > > > to consider and support, and we'll be on the hook to > handle > > >> any > > >> > > bugs > > >> > > > or > > >> > > > > > > inconsistencies that arise, either as a result of our use > of > > >> the > > >> > > > > JsonPath > > >> > > > > > > library we choose, or as a result of bugs in that library. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 3. It's not clear that JsonPath is superior or even > suitable > > >> for > > >> > > some > > >> > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > the SMTs proposed here. What would be the advantages of > > >> JsonPath > > >> > > with > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > InsertField or HoistField SMTs? > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I also don't think that adding dot notation is unfriendly > to > > >> > users; > > >> > > > > many > > >> > > > > > > have proposed this type of syntax in the past, and it's > > >> > frequently > > >> > > > used > > >> > > > > > in > > >> > > > > > > informal discussions to refer to nested fields. If the > > >> proposed > > >> > > > syntax > > >> > > > > > was > > >> > > > > > > not already intuitive then a case against deciding on our > > own > > >> > might > > >> > > > be > > >> > > > > > more > > >> > > > > > > convincing, but as things stand, simple dot notation is > > likely > > >> > > going > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > easier for users to understand than JsonPath syntax. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Cheers, > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Chris > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 9:31 AM Joshua Grisham < > > >> > > > grishamj...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hello all! > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Sorry that I come a bit later to the party here, but I > am > > >> the > > >> > one > > >> > > > who > > >> > > > > > > wrote > > >> > > > > > > > KIP-683 [1] for recursive support (just simply looping > > >> through > > >> > > all > > >> > > > > > child > > >> > > > > > > > non-primitive structures for the same matching name(s)) > > >> which > > >> > is > > >> > > a > > >> > > > > > > slightly > > >> > > > > > > > different way to try and solve a similar requirement -- > > >> > > > unfortunately > > >> > > > > > at > > >> > > > > > > > the time the dev community was not quite as active and > > then > > >> I > > >> > > also > > >> > > > > got > > >> > > > > > > busy > > >> > > > > > > > with work and just life in general so wasn't able to > > follow > > >> up > > >> > or > > >> > > > > push > > >> > > > > > > it. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I do think it is a very good idea to have some kind of > > >> > path-like > > >> > > > > > > expression > > >> > > > > > > > to be able to specifically address a nested field, as I > > can > > >> see > > >> > > > that > > >> > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > simple "recursive" case could potentially result in > > >> unwanted or > > >> > > > > > > unexpected > > >> > > > > > > > behavior, plus there is the potential to introduce a bit > > of > > >> a > > >> > > > > > performance > > >> > > > > > > > hit to always loop through everything in cases where the > > >> > > > > schemas/values > > >> > > > > > > > might be quite large. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > One thing I wanted to ask: instead of creating a new > "path > > >> > > parser" > > >> > > > > > > > including some bespoke or "borrowed" syntax, why not > just > > >> use > > >> > > > > something > > >> > > > > > > > that already exists? Specifically here I am thinking > about > > >> > > > JsonPath ( > > >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/json-path/JsonPath) > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > There is already quite nice support in JsonPath for > > handling > > >> > > > special > > >> > > > > > > > characters in field names, for handling different > > >> non-primitive > > >> > > > types > > >> > > > > > > > (arrays etc), for handling multiple levels of nesting, > etc > > >> etc. > > >> > > > > Would > > >> > > > > > it > > >> > > > > > > > be possible to instead to re-think this and maybe have > > some > > >> > kind > > >> > > of > > >> > > > > > > > JsonPath-based Schema selector / updater and/or > > >> JsonPath-based > > >> > > > Value > > >> > > > > > > > selector / updater? Conceptually this feels like it > makes > > >> sense > > >> > > to > > >> > > > > me, > > >> > > > > > as > > >> > > > > > > > from the top of my head it would be quite a natural fit > to > > >> map > > >> > a > > >> > > > Json > > >> > > > > > > data > > >> > > > > > > > structure to the Connect API data structure (and you > could > > >> > > > > potentially > > >> > > > > > > even > > >> > > > > > > > try to leverage the existing Json-to-Connect > > >> > > > serializer/deserializer > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > help out with this even in a more "out of the > box"-feeling > > >> kind > > >> > > of > > >> > > > > > way). > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Maybe also as Tom mentioned, this part (in my example, > > this > > >> > > > > > > JsonPath-based > > >> > > > > > > > "thing") could even be a generic API that could be used > by > > >> any > > >> > > SMT, > > >> > > > > > > > including used in custom ones built by the community. > > Then > > >> I > > >> > > think > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > use > > >> > > > > > > > a completely separate config property somehow related to > > >> "path" > > >> > > (as > > >> > > > > Tom > > >> > > > > > > > also mentioned) would also make a lot of sense here as > > well. > > >> > This > > >> > > > > way, > > >> > > > > > if > > >> > > > > > > > you select based on "path" then this JsonPath-based API > > >> would > > >> > be > > >> > > > > used, > > >> > > > > > > > otherwise it could use something similar to the existing > > >> > > get-field > > >> > > > > > based > > >> > > > > > > > approach (which I guess could also be refactored into > some > > >> kind > > >> > > of > > >> > > > > > > utility > > >> > > > > > > > / API as well if it made sense?) > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > And with that in mind, if this was the kind of direction > > to > > >> go, > > >> > > > then > > >> > > > > a > > >> > > > > > > > "recursive" capability like I pitched in KIP-683 would > > also > > >> > > become > > >> > > > > > > > unnecessary because you could easily write a JsonPath > > >> > expression > > >> > > > like > > >> > > > > > > > "$..someRecuriveField" and it would do the same thing > (on > > >> top > > >> > of > > >> > > > > > anything > > >> > > > > > > > else you would want to do that is already supported by > > >> > JsonPath). > > >> > > > > Then > > >> > > > > > we > > >> > > > > > > > could also kill that older KIP and do a bit of clean-up > :) > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1] - > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-683%3A+Add+recursive+support+to+Connect+Cast+and+ReplaceField+transforms%2C+and+support+for+casting+complex+types+to+either+a+native+or+JSON+string > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Just some extra food for thought. All-in-all I think > this > > >> is a > > >> > > > super > > >> > > > > > > great > > >> > > > > > > > initiative! > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Joshua > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Den fre 22 apr. 2022 kl 14:50 skrev Chris Egerton < > > >> > > > > > > fearthecel...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > > > >: > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Thanks for taking a look at this, and for your > > thoughtful > > >> > > > comments. > > >> > > > > > > I'll > > >> > > > > > > > > leave it up to Jorge to address most of your comments > > but > > >> I > > >> > > > wanted > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > share > > >> > > > > > > > > a couple quick thoughts I had regarding 103 and 104. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 103. Like you, I was envisioning a possible syntax for > > >> array > > >> > > > access > > >> > > > > > > that > > >> > > > > > > > > used classic C-style brackets; e.g., `arr[index]`. > > >> However, I > > >> > > > > wonder > > >> > > > > > if > > >> > > > > > > > we > > >> > > > > > > > > could keep things simple and use the same syntax that > > >> we're > > >> > > > > proposing > > >> > > > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > > > nested field access? In other words, instead of > > >> `arr[index]`, > > >> > > > you'd > > >> > > > > > > write > > >> > > > > > > > > `arr.index`. It'd save us and users the headache of > > >> reserving > > >> > > > > > > characters > > >> > > > > > > > > now that would need to be escaped even if their > > unescaped > > >> > > > brethren > > >> > > > > > > aren't > > >> > > > > > > > > used for anything, and also avoid the question of what > > >> > exactly > > >> > > we > > >> > > > > > > should > > >> > > > > > > > do > > >> > > > > > > > > when we see a config that uses reserved characters > that > > >> > aren't > > >> > > > yet > > >> > > > > > > > > supported (throwing an exception seems pretty > unfriendly > > >> for > > >> > > new > > >> > > > > > > users). > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 104. This would probably be useful, but it would come > > with > > >> > some > > >> > > > > nasty > > >> > > > > > > > > compatibility questions that would need to be > addressed > > if > > >> > we'd > > >> > > > > want > > >> > > > > > > SMTs > > >> > > > > > > > > that leverage this new API to be viable for older > > >> versions of > > >> > > > > > Connect. > > >> > > > > > > If > > >> > > > > > > > > we package and distribute this feature as a library > > >> (either > > >> > via > > >> > > > an > > >> > > > > > > > entirely > > >> > > > > > > > > new artifact, or as part of the existing > > >> connect-transforms > > >> > or > > >> > > > > > > > connect-api > > >> > > > > > > > > artifacts), then we'd have to either sidestep the > > existing > > >> > > plugin > > >> > > > > > > > isolation > > >> > > > > > > > > logic [1] that basically makes it impossible for > Connect > > >> > > plugins > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > > ship > > >> > > > > > > > > their own versions of Connect artifacts, or issue a > big > > >> > warning > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > > people > > >> > > > > > > > > that any SMT that uses this API won't work with any > > older > > >> > > > versions > > >> > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > > > Connect. There's also some other features we might > want > > to > > >> > add > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > an > > >> > > > > > > > > SMT-utils library such as the existing, internal, > utils > > >> that > > >> > > > > Connect > > >> > > > > > > uses > > >> > > > > > > > > right now [2]. It may be worth exploring this in a > > >> separate > > >> > KIP > > >> > > > of > > >> > > > > > its > > >> > > > > > > > own. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > [1] - > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/d480c4aa6e513e36050d8e067931de2270525d18/connect/runtime/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/connect/runtime/isolation/PluginUtils.java#L46-L143 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > [2] - > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/d480c4aa6e513e36050d8e067931de2270525d18/connect/transforms/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/connect/transforms/util > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Chris > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 6:55 AM Tom Bentley < > > >> > > tbent...@redhat.com > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Hi Jorge, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, especially for the examples > which > > >> are > > >> > > > > > > super-clear. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 100. The name `field.style` isn't so clear for > > something > > >> > like > > >> > > > > > > > > ReplaceField: > > >> > > > > > > > > > it's not so obvious that field.style applies to > > >> `include` > > >> > and > > >> > > > > > > > `exclude`. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 101. The permitted values for `field.style` don't > seem > > >> > > terribly > > >> > > > > > > > intuitive > > >> > > > > > > > > > (to me anyway): the meaning of `plain` isn't very > > >> > guessable. > > >> > > > Why > > >> > > > > > not > > >> > > > > > > > > > `top-level` or `root` instead? Also `nested` could > be > > >> > > > > misconstrued > > >> > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > mean > > >> > > > > > > > > > nested-but-not-top-level, so perhaps `recursive` or > > >> > > `cascading` > > >> > > > > > might > > >> > > > > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > > > better? > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 102. I'm torn on whether making the interpretation > of > > >> > > existing > > >> > > > > > > configs > > >> > > > > > > > > like > > >> > > > > > > > > > `field` be dependent on `field.style` is a good > idea. > > I > > >> can > > >> > > see > > >> > > > > > that > > >> > > > > > > > it's > > >> > > > > > > > > > the simplest thing to do, but it just feels a bit > odd > > >> that > > >> > > > > > sometimes > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > > `field` would actually be a path and have different > > >> > escaping > > >> > > > > rules. > > >> > > > > > > An > > >> > > > > > > > > > alternative would be to come up with a parallel set > of > > >> > config > > >> > > > > names > > >> > > > > > > > (e.g. > > >> > > > > > > > > > as well as "field" an SMT might support "path") > which > > >> were > > >> > > > > defined > > >> > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > > always take paths, thus avoiding the changeable > > >> > > interpretation > > >> > > > of > > >> > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > > existing configs. The SMT's #configure() would need > to > > >> > throw > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > case > > >> > > > > > > > > > that both configs were given. I can see that that > > would > > >> be > > >> > > more > > >> > > > > > work > > >> > > > > > > in > > >> > > > > > > > > > implementation, but it feels cleaner. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 103. I think in order to allow for supporting arrays > > in > > >> a > > >> > > later > > >> > > > > KIP > > >> > > > > > > > > (which > > >> > > > > > > > > > certainly seems like it could be useful), we'd want > to > > >> > > specify > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > syntax > > >> > > > > > > > > > now, even if it wasn't implemented under this KIP. > > >> That's > > >> > > > > because I > > >> > > > > > > > don't > > >> > > > > > > > > > think you can't exclude the possibility that > > characters > > >> > such > > >> > > as > > >> > > > > `[` > > >> > > > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > > > `]` > > >> > > > > > > > > > appear in field names. So you'd have a compatibility > > >> > problem > > >> > > if > > >> > > > > > > people > > >> > > > > > > > > > started using the features of this KIP to access > such > > >> > fields, > > >> > > > > only > > >> > > > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > > > > those characters to change their meaning under a > later > > >> KIP. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > 104. I also wonder whether making paths into a > public > > >> Java > > >> > > API, > > >> > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > use > > >> > > > > > > > > by > > >> > > > > > > > > > 3rd party SMTs, would be valuable. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks again, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Tom > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 17:53, Chris Egerton < > > >> > > > > > fearthecel...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 💯 Thanks Jorge, LGTM! > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022, 12:40 Jorge Esteban Quilcate > > >> Otoya > > >> > < > > >> > > > > > > > > > > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, Chris! Not possible without your > > >> feedback. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 23:04, Chris Egerton < > > >> > > > > > > > fearthecel...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, one more typo :) > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is there. I think I know what you mean > > now, > > >> > seems > > >> > > > > that > > >> > > > > > > > > > Confluence > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > is putting everything in one line when it's in > > >> separate > > >> > > > lines > > >> > > > > > in > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > editor. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully, it's fixed now. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
