Hi Damian,

Since the StateStoreProvider is moved into internal packages, how about
just keeping the ReadOnlyXXStores interface for the queryAPI, and
"QueryableStoreType" in the discoverAPI, and move the StateStoreProvider
/ QueryableStoreTypeMatcher and different implementations of the matcher
like KeyValueStoreType / etc in a new section called "developer guide for
customized stores"? This way we have a separate guidance for Streams users,
from Streams developers.

Other than that, all LGTM.

Guozhang

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I've updated the KIP with changes as discussed in this Thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Damian
>
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 at 16:51 Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > I think it's important to distinguish the use cases of defining new
> stores
> > (somewhat rare) versus using the `store` method (very common). The
> strategy
> > employed here is a common way to use generics to ensure type safety for
> the
> > latter case. In the former case, there are all sorts of weird things one
> > could do to defeat the type system, but spending a bit more effort to get
> > it right so that the common case is safer and more pleasant is worth it,
> in
> > my opinion.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, you get compile time errors
> > >
> > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 at 16:22 Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You wont get a runtime error as you wouldn't find a store of that
> type.
> > > > The API would return null
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 at 16:22 Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> But if "my-store" is not of type MyStoreType don't you still get a
> run
> > > >> time
> > > >> error that in effect is the same as the class cast would be?
> Basically
> > > the
> > > >> question I'm asking is whether this added complexity is actually
> > moving
> > > >> runtime errors to compile time errors.
> > > >>
> > > >> -Jay
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>



-- 
-- Guozhang

Reply via email to