I like Bill's idea (pending a better name for the Forwarded).
Cheers
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> Thanks for the KIP!
>
> Could we consider taking an approach similar to what was done in KIP-182
> with regards to overloading?
>
> Meaning we could add a "Forwarded" object (horrible name I know) with
> methods withTimestamp, withChildName, and withChildIndex. To handle the
> case when both a child-name and child-index is provided we could throw an
> exception.
>
> Then we could reduce the overloaded {{forward}} methods from 6 to 2.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Paolo Patierno <ppatie...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Matthias,
> >
> > just a question : what will be the timestamp "type" in the new message on
> > the wire ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Paolo.
> > ________________________________
> > From: Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:06 AM
> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> > Subject: [DISCUSS] KIP-251: Allow timestamp manipulation in Processor API
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to propose a new KIP for Kafka Streams that allows timestamp
> > manipulation at Processor API level.
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > 251%3A+Allow+timestamp+manipulation+in+Processor+API
> >
> > Looking forward to your feedback.
> >
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> >
>
