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’?
`record-header-size` would be better for consistency.
Junwang Guo <lansg0...@gmail.com> 於 2025年7月18日 週五 上午11:07寫道：
> 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
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
