Hello Richard, Xavier: I think I am convinced my your arguments. How about keeping all() as is and rename "range" to "fetchAll" then?
Guozhang On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Xavier Léauté <xav...@confluent.io> wrote: > I don't feel this worth holding up the vote for, if no one else shares my > concerns. > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 15:59 Richard Yu <yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Xavier: There has been two pluses on the voting thread. Are you fine with > > the current formation? > > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Richard Yu <yohan.richard...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I think we can come up with this compromise: range(long timeFrom, long > > > timeTo) will be changed to getKeys(long timeFrom, long timeTo). Sounds > > fair? > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Xavier Léauté <xav...@confluent.io> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > >> > Generally I think having `all / range` is better in terms of > > consistency > > >> > with key-value windows. I.e. queries with key are named as `get / > > fetch` > > >> > for kv / window stores, and queries without key are named as `range > / > > >> all`. > > >> > > > >> > > >> For kv stores, range takes a range of keys, and with this proposal > range > > >> on > > >> window stores would take a range of time, that does not sound > consistent > > >> to > > >> me at all. > > >> > > >> We also already have fetch which take both a range of time and keys. > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- -- Guozhang
