Hi Chia-Ping,
Thanks for your discussion.
chia00: Updated. Thanks!
chia01:
Initially, I think using a single argument like ‘record-header-size’ would
make it simpler for users. However, this approach does not allow users to
configure ‘key-size’ and ‘value-size’ separately within the header, which
could be problematic in use cases where the key and value sizes differ
significantly, such as a large key with a small value, or vice versa.
I’m inclined to split ‘record-header-size’ into ‘record-header-key-size’
and ‘record-header-value-size.’ Just one quick question:
When representing the value size in the header, do you think it’s better to
use the name ‘record-header-value-size’ or keep it as ‘record-header-size’?
Appreciate your thoughts.
Regards,
Nick
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 9:03 PM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@apache.org> wrote:
> hi Junwang
>
> chia00: Could you please add discuss/vote link to the KIP?
>
> chia01: Have you considering add "record-header-key-size"?
>
> Best,
> Chia-Ping
>
> On 2025/07/08 08:33:51 Junwang Guo wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Just giving this thread a gentle nudge. If there's no further feedback, I
> > plan to start the vote tomorrow.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 6:04 PM Junwang Guo <lansg0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Chia-Ping
> > >
> > > Thanks for the feedback!
> > >
> > >
> > > chia_0: Good suggestion! I've expanded the "Compatibility" section to
> > > include more detailed e2e testing descriptions.
> > >
> > > chia_1: Exactly—the new fields only work with the new argument parser.
> > > I've made this explicit in the KIP to avoid any confusion.
> > >
> > > chia_2: If “key” and “header” are added, we will apply the same check
> as
> > > we do for the record “value,” for example:
> > >
> > >
> > > String sentKey = new String(sentMessageKey, StandardCharsets.UTF_8);
> > >
> > > String readKey = new String(records.iterator().next().key(),
> > > StandardCharsets.UTF_8);
> > >
> > > Header sentHeader = headers.iterator().next();
> > > Header readHeader =
> records.iterator().next().headers().iterator().next();
> > >
> > > if (!readHeader.equals(sentHeader)) {
> > > throw new RuntimeException();
> > >
> > > if (!readKey.equals(sentKey))
> > > throw new RuntimeException();
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 10:55 PM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> hi Nick
> > >>
> > >> thanks for this proposal. Some questions are listed below.
> > >>
> > >> chia_0: This tool is used by e2e, so could you please describe the
> changes
> > >> for e2e too?
> > >>
> > >> chia_1: the two new fields (*message-key-size-byt and *
> > >> *message-header-size-bytes)* are NOT supported by old (index)
> arguments,
> > >> right? If so, do you mind mentioning that in the KIP?
> > >>
> > >> chia_2: `EndToEndLatency` will validate the record value. What
> happens if
> > >> the "key" and "header" are added to the record?
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Chia-Ping
> > >>
> > >> Junwang Guo <lansg0...@gmail.com> 於 2025年6月10日 週二 下午10:29寫道：
> > >>
> > >> > Hi everyone,
> > >> >
> > >> > I would like to start a discussion on a KIP to improve the
> > >> > `EndToEndLatency` tool.
> > >> >
> > >> > KIP Link: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/Awu9F
> > >> >
> > >> > Thank you!
> > >> >
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> > Nick Guo
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
