Re: [VOTE} KIP-796: Interactive Query v2
Thanks, all. This all sounds good to me. I’ll send a PR to add a warning/disclaimer to the javadoc. I don’t believe we updated the docs yet, but I will double-check. Thanks, John On Tue, Mar 22, 2022, at 20:06, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > The old API IQv1 is not deprecated yet, so I don't see a reason to revert. > > We might not want to "advertise" the IQv2 in the release announcement > though if it's not complete and unstable right now. > > We might also not want to mention it in the docs? Not sure if there was > already docs PR. If yes, reverting the docs or adding a BIG disclaimer > "under development / experimental" might be good. > > -Matthias > > > On 3/22/22 9:04 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: >> Hi John, >> >> Originally I was leaning towards making IQv2 APIs more or less stable while >> being released for the first time, but after some second thoughts I'm now >> feeling it's okay to take it in a more evolving manner. So I'm preferring >> to keep it and be open for breaking changes in the future. >> >> >> Guozhang >> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 8:27 AM John Roesler wrote: >> >>> Thanks Bruno, >>> >>> Yes, although IQv2 is not fully implemented (it doesn't >>> query global stores, and it doesn't support every query we >>> ultimately want), the queries that are implemnted do work as >>> expected. >>> >>> The main concern was that, right now, it's the job of the >>> Metered layer to translate queries and responses between >>> Java types and binary data. The suggestions that came in >>> after the KIP was approved were to consider moving to a >>> generic type-mapping API or to move to a lazy >>> de/serialization approach. I think either of those is a good >>> suggestion, but I haven't had time to really explore the >>> implementation to see how either would really pan out. >>> >>> You are correct, though, all these APIs are marked >>> "Evolving", so we can always break compatibility later if we >>> feel like we have a much better approach. >>> >>> Let's give the community a few days to chime in. If no one >>> votes to pull it out, I'll plan to just keep it in. If we do >>> remove it, then KIPs 805 and 806 would also be removed. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -John >>> >>> On Tue, 2022-03-22 at 12:43 +0100, Bruno Cadonna wrote: Hi John, The already implemented query types work as expected, don't they? I do not know the specific concerns, but it seems that this is the situation that motivated you to mark the APIs as @Evolving. Keeping the IQv2 API in 3.2 does not contradict the accepted KIP, right? In case, we decided to remove the IQv2 API from 3.2, would that mean we also need to remove the existing query types specified in KIP-805 and KIP-806? BTW, I now realize that I mistakenly removed KIP-796 from the release plan for 3.2. Sorry for that! I will re-add it to the release plan. Best, Bruno On 22.03.22 02:50, John Roesler wrote: > Hello, all, > > During the PR reviews for this KIP, there were several late concerns >>> raised about the IQv2 APIs. I filed tickets under KAFKA-13479 and promised >>> to revisit them before the API was released. > > Unfortunately, I have not had time to circle back on those concerns. >>> Now that the 3.2 branch cut has happened, I can either remove the IQv2 API >>> from 3.2 and plan to address those concerns before 3.3, or we can go ahead >>> and release IQv2 as proposed and implemented. > > Note that the APIs are all marked @Evolving, so we can technically >>> break compatibility if we do find a better way to do something later. > > What is your preference? Release it, or wait? > > Thanks, > John > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, at 21:18, John Roesler wrote: >> Thanks for voting and for the discussion, all! >> >> The vote on KIP-796 passes with: >> 3 binding +1 (Bruno, Bill, and myself) >> 2 non-binding +1 (Patrick and Vasiliki) >> no vetoes >> >> The vote is now closed. If anyone has objections later on, >> please raise them, though! >> >> We will proceed with a series of pull requests to implement >> the framework, and we will also propose one or more small >> KIPs to propose specific queries. >> >> Thanks again, >> -John >> >> On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 12:11 -0500, Bill Bejeck wrote: >>> Thanks for the well-detailed KIP, John. >>> >>> It's a +1 (binding) from me. >>> >>> I want to point out one thing which I think is an oversight. The >>> "Example >>> Raw Query" scan includes a line using the >>> `kafkaStreams.serdesForStore` >>> method, but it's listed in the "Rejected Alternatives" section. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Bill >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:22 AM Bruno Cadonna >>> wrote: >>> Thanks for the KIP, John! +1 (binding) Best, Bruno On 19.11.21
Re: [VOTE} KIP-796: Interactive Query v2
The old API IQv1 is not deprecated yet, so I don't see a reason to revert. We might not want to "advertise" the IQv2 in the release announcement though if it's not complete and unstable right now. We might also not want to mention it in the docs? Not sure if there was already docs PR. If yes, reverting the docs or adding a BIG disclaimer "under development / experimental" might be good. -Matthias On 3/22/22 9:04 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: Hi John, Originally I was leaning towards making IQv2 APIs more or less stable while being released for the first time, but after some second thoughts I'm now feeling it's okay to take it in a more evolving manner. So I'm preferring to keep it and be open for breaking changes in the future. Guozhang On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 8:27 AM John Roesler wrote: Thanks Bruno, Yes, although IQv2 is not fully implemented (it doesn't query global stores, and it doesn't support every query we ultimately want), the queries that are implemnted do work as expected. The main concern was that, right now, it's the job of the Metered layer to translate queries and responses between Java types and binary data. The suggestions that came in after the KIP was approved were to consider moving to a generic type-mapping API or to move to a lazy de/serialization approach. I think either of those is a good suggestion, but I haven't had time to really explore the implementation to see how either would really pan out. You are correct, though, all these APIs are marked "Evolving", so we can always break compatibility later if we feel like we have a much better approach. Let's give the community a few days to chime in. If no one votes to pull it out, I'll plan to just keep it in. If we do remove it, then KIPs 805 and 806 would also be removed. Thanks, -John On Tue, 2022-03-22 at 12:43 +0100, Bruno Cadonna wrote: Hi John, The already implemented query types work as expected, don't they? I do not know the specific concerns, but it seems that this is the situation that motivated you to mark the APIs as @Evolving. Keeping the IQv2 API in 3.2 does not contradict the accepted KIP, right? In case, we decided to remove the IQv2 API from 3.2, would that mean we also need to remove the existing query types specified in KIP-805 and KIP-806? BTW, I now realize that I mistakenly removed KIP-796 from the release plan for 3.2. Sorry for that! I will re-add it to the release plan. Best, Bruno On 22.03.22 02:50, John Roesler wrote: Hello, all, During the PR reviews for this KIP, there were several late concerns raised about the IQv2 APIs. I filed tickets under KAFKA-13479 and promised to revisit them before the API was released. Unfortunately, I have not had time to circle back on those concerns. Now that the 3.2 branch cut has happened, I can either remove the IQv2 API from 3.2 and plan to address those concerns before 3.3, or we can go ahead and release IQv2 as proposed and implemented. Note that the APIs are all marked @Evolving, so we can technically break compatibility if we do find a better way to do something later. What is your preference? Release it, or wait? Thanks, John On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, at 21:18, John Roesler wrote: Thanks for voting and for the discussion, all! The vote on KIP-796 passes with: 3 binding +1 (Bruno, Bill, and myself) 2 non-binding +1 (Patrick and Vasiliki) no vetoes The vote is now closed. If anyone has objections later on, please raise them, though! We will proceed with a series of pull requests to implement the framework, and we will also propose one or more small KIPs to propose specific queries. Thanks again, -John On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 12:11 -0500, Bill Bejeck wrote: Thanks for the well-detailed KIP, John. It's a +1 (binding) from me. I want to point out one thing which I think is an oversight. The "Example Raw Query" scan includes a line using the `kafkaStreams.serdesForStore` method, but it's listed in the "Rejected Alternatives" section. Thanks, Bill On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:22 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: Thanks for the KIP, John! +1 (binding) Best, Bruno On 19.11.21 18:04, Vasiliki Papavasileiou wrote: I think this KIP will greatly improve how we handle IQ in streams so +1 (non-binding) from me. Thank you John! On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:45 PM Patrick Stuedi wrote: +1 (non-binding), thanks John! -Patrick On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:27 AM John Roesler < vvcep...@apache.org> wrote: Hello all, I'd like to open the vote for KIP-796, which proposes a revamp of the Interactive Query APIs in Kafka Streams. The proposal is here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/34xnCw Thanks to all who reviewed the proposal, and thanks in advance for taking the time to vote! Thank you, -John
Re: [VOTE} KIP-796: Interactive Query v2
Hi John, Originally I was leaning towards making IQv2 APIs more or less stable while being released for the first time, but after some second thoughts I'm now feeling it's okay to take it in a more evolving manner. So I'm preferring to keep it and be open for breaking changes in the future. Guozhang On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 8:27 AM John Roesler wrote: > Thanks Bruno, > > Yes, although IQv2 is not fully implemented (it doesn't > query global stores, and it doesn't support every query we > ultimately want), the queries that are implemnted do work as > expected. > > The main concern was that, right now, it's the job of the > Metered layer to translate queries and responses between > Java types and binary data. The suggestions that came in > after the KIP was approved were to consider moving to a > generic type-mapping API or to move to a lazy > de/serialization approach. I think either of those is a good > suggestion, but I haven't had time to really explore the > implementation to see how either would really pan out. > > You are correct, though, all these APIs are marked > "Evolving", so we can always break compatibility later if we > feel like we have a much better approach. > > Let's give the community a few days to chime in. If no one > votes to pull it out, I'll plan to just keep it in. If we do > remove it, then KIPs 805 and 806 would also be removed. > > Thanks, > -John > > On Tue, 2022-03-22 at 12:43 +0100, Bruno Cadonna wrote: > > Hi John, > > > > The already implemented query types work as expected, don't they? > > > > I do not know the specific concerns, but it seems that this is the > > situation that motivated you to mark the APIs as @Evolving. Keeping the > > IQv2 API in 3.2 does not contradict the accepted KIP, right? > > > > In case, we decided to remove the IQv2 API from 3.2, would that mean we > > also need to remove the existing query types specified in KIP-805 and > > KIP-806? > > > > BTW, I now realize that I mistakenly removed KIP-796 from the release > > plan for 3.2. Sorry for that! I will re-add it to the release plan. > > > > Best, > > Bruno > > > > On 22.03.22 02:50, John Roesler wrote: > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > During the PR reviews for this KIP, there were several late concerns > raised about the IQv2 APIs. I filed tickets under KAFKA-13479 and promised > to revisit them before the API was released. > > > > > > Unfortunately, I have not had time to circle back on those concerns. > Now that the 3.2 branch cut has happened, I can either remove the IQv2 API > from 3.2 and plan to address those concerns before 3.3, or we can go ahead > and release IQv2 as proposed and implemented. > > > > > > Note that the APIs are all marked @Evolving, so we can technically > break compatibility if we do find a better way to do something later. > > > > > > What is your preference? Release it, or wait? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > John > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, at 21:18, John Roesler wrote: > > > > Thanks for voting and for the discussion, all! > > > > > > > > The vote on KIP-796 passes with: > > > > 3 binding +1 (Bruno, Bill, and myself) > > > > 2 non-binding +1 (Patrick and Vasiliki) > > > > no vetoes > > > > > > > > The vote is now closed. If anyone has objections later on, > > > > please raise them, though! > > > > > > > > We will proceed with a series of pull requests to implement > > > > the framework, and we will also propose one or more small > > > > KIPs to propose specific queries. > > > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > > -John > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 12:11 -0500, Bill Bejeck wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the well-detailed KIP, John. > > > > > > > > > > It's a +1 (binding) from me. > > > > > > > > > > I want to point out one thing which I think is an oversight. The > "Example > > > > > Raw Query" scan includes a line using the > `kafkaStreams.serdesForStore` > > > > > method, but it's listed in the "Rejected Alternatives" section. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:22 AM Bruno Cadonna > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, John! > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19.11.21 18:04, Vasiliki Papavasileiou wrote: > > > > > > > I think this KIP will greatly improve how we handle IQ in > streams so +1 > > > > > > > (non-binding) from me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you John! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:45 PM Patrick Stuedi > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding), thanks John! > > > > > > > > -Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:27 AM John Roesler < > vvcep...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to open the vote for KIP-796, which proposes > > > > > > > > > a revamp of the Interactive Query APIs in Kafka Streams. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T
Re: [VOTE} KIP-796: Interactive Query v2
Thanks Bruno, Yes, although IQv2 is not fully implemented (it doesn't query global stores, and it doesn't support every query we ultimately want), the queries that are implemnted do work as expected. The main concern was that, right now, it's the job of the Metered layer to translate queries and responses between Java types and binary data. The suggestions that came in after the KIP was approved were to consider moving to a generic type-mapping API or to move to a lazy de/serialization approach. I think either of those is a good suggestion, but I haven't had time to really explore the implementation to see how either would really pan out. You are correct, though, all these APIs are marked "Evolving", so we can always break compatibility later if we feel like we have a much better approach. Let's give the community a few days to chime in. If no one votes to pull it out, I'll plan to just keep it in. If we do remove it, then KIPs 805 and 806 would also be removed. Thanks, -John On Tue, 2022-03-22 at 12:43 +0100, Bruno Cadonna wrote: > Hi John, > > The already implemented query types work as expected, don't they? > > I do not know the specific concerns, but it seems that this is the > situation that motivated you to mark the APIs as @Evolving. Keeping the > IQv2 API in 3.2 does not contradict the accepted KIP, right? > > In case, we decided to remove the IQv2 API from 3.2, would that mean we > also need to remove the existing query types specified in KIP-805 and > KIP-806? > > BTW, I now realize that I mistakenly removed KIP-796 from the release > plan for 3.2. Sorry for that! I will re-add it to the release plan. > > Best, > Bruno > > On 22.03.22 02:50, John Roesler wrote: > > Hello, all, > > > > During the PR reviews for this KIP, there were several late concerns raised > > about the IQv2 APIs. I filed tickets under KAFKA-13479 and promised to > > revisit them before the API was released. > > > > Unfortunately, I have not had time to circle back on those concerns. Now > > that the 3.2 branch cut has happened, I can either remove the IQv2 API from > > 3.2 and plan to address those concerns before 3.3, or we can go ahead and > > release IQv2 as proposed and implemented. > > > > Note that the APIs are all marked @Evolving, so we can technically break > > compatibility if we do find a better way to do something later. > > > > What is your preference? Release it, or wait? > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, at 21:18, John Roesler wrote: > > > Thanks for voting and for the discussion, all! > > > > > > The vote on KIP-796 passes with: > > > 3 binding +1 (Bruno, Bill, and myself) > > > 2 non-binding +1 (Patrick and Vasiliki) > > > no vetoes > > > > > > The vote is now closed. If anyone has objections later on, > > > please raise them, though! > > > > > > We will proceed with a series of pull requests to implement > > > the framework, and we will also propose one or more small > > > KIPs to propose specific queries. > > > > > > Thanks again, > > > -John > > > > > > On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 12:11 -0500, Bill Bejeck wrote: > > > > Thanks for the well-detailed KIP, John. > > > > > > > > It's a +1 (binding) from me. > > > > > > > > I want to point out one thing which I think is an oversight. The > > > > "Example > > > > Raw Query" scan includes a line using the `kafkaStreams.serdesForStore` > > > > method, but it's listed in the "Rejected Alternatives" section. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:22 AM Bruno Cadonna > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, John! > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > > > On 19.11.21 18:04, Vasiliki Papavasileiou wrote: > > > > > > I think this KIP will greatly improve how we handle IQ in streams > > > > > > so +1 > > > > > > (non-binding) from me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you John! > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:45 PM Patrick Stuedi > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding), thanks John! > > > > > > > -Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:27 AM John Roesler > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to open the vote for KIP-796, which proposes > > > > > > > > a revamp of the Interactive Query APIs in Kafka Streams. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The proposal is here: > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/34xnCw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks to all who reviewed the proposal, and thanks in > > > > > > > > advance for taking the time to vote! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE} KIP-796: Interactive Query v2
Hi John, The already implemented query types work as expected, don't they? I do not know the specific concerns, but it seems that this is the situation that motivated you to mark the APIs as @Evolving. Keeping the IQv2 API in 3.2 does not contradict the accepted KIP, right? In case, we decided to remove the IQv2 API from 3.2, would that mean we also need to remove the existing query types specified in KIP-805 and KIP-806? BTW, I now realize that I mistakenly removed KIP-796 from the release plan for 3.2. Sorry for that! I will re-add it to the release plan. Best, Bruno On 22.03.22 02:50, John Roesler wrote: Hello, all, During the PR reviews for this KIP, there were several late concerns raised about the IQv2 APIs. I filed tickets under KAFKA-13479 and promised to revisit them before the API was released. Unfortunately, I have not had time to circle back on those concerns. Now that the 3.2 branch cut has happened, I can either remove the IQv2 API from 3.2 and plan to address those concerns before 3.3, or we can go ahead and release IQv2 as proposed and implemented. Note that the APIs are all marked @Evolving, so we can technically break compatibility if we do find a better way to do something later. What is your preference? Release it, or wait? Thanks, John On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, at 21:18, John Roesler wrote: Thanks for voting and for the discussion, all! The vote on KIP-796 passes with: 3 binding +1 (Bruno, Bill, and myself) 2 non-binding +1 (Patrick and Vasiliki) no vetoes The vote is now closed. If anyone has objections later on, please raise them, though! We will proceed with a series of pull requests to implement the framework, and we will also propose one or more small KIPs to propose specific queries. Thanks again, -John On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 12:11 -0500, Bill Bejeck wrote: Thanks for the well-detailed KIP, John. It's a +1 (binding) from me. I want to point out one thing which I think is an oversight. The "Example Raw Query" scan includes a line using the `kafkaStreams.serdesForStore` method, but it's listed in the "Rejected Alternatives" section. Thanks, Bill On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:22 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: Thanks for the KIP, John! +1 (binding) Best, Bruno On 19.11.21 18:04, Vasiliki Papavasileiou wrote: I think this KIP will greatly improve how we handle IQ in streams so +1 (non-binding) from me. Thank you John! On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:45 PM Patrick Stuedi wrote: +1 (non-binding), thanks John! -Patrick On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:27 AM John Roesler wrote: Hello all, I'd like to open the vote for KIP-796, which proposes a revamp of the Interactive Query APIs in Kafka Streams. The proposal is here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/34xnCw Thanks to all who reviewed the proposal, and thanks in advance for taking the time to vote! Thank you, -John
Re: [VOTE} KIP-796: Interactive Query v2
Hello, all, During the PR reviews for this KIP, there were several late concerns raised about the IQv2 APIs. I filed tickets under KAFKA-13479 and promised to revisit them before the API was released. Unfortunately, I have not had time to circle back on those concerns. Now that the 3.2 branch cut has happened, I can either remove the IQv2 API from 3.2 and plan to address those concerns before 3.3, or we can go ahead and release IQv2 as proposed and implemented. Note that the APIs are all marked @Evolving, so we can technically break compatibility if we do find a better way to do something later. What is your preference? Release it, or wait? Thanks, John On Mon, Nov 22, 2021, at 21:18, John Roesler wrote: > Thanks for voting and for the discussion, all! > > The vote on KIP-796 passes with: > 3 binding +1 (Bruno, Bill, and myself) > 2 non-binding +1 (Patrick and Vasiliki) > no vetoes > > The vote is now closed. If anyone has objections later on, > please raise them, though! > > We will proceed with a series of pull requests to implement > the framework, and we will also propose one or more small > KIPs to propose specific queries. > > Thanks again, > -John > > On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 12:11 -0500, Bill Bejeck wrote: >> Thanks for the well-detailed KIP, John. >> >> It's a +1 (binding) from me. >> >> I want to point out one thing which I think is an oversight. The "Example >> Raw Query" scan includes a line using the `kafkaStreams.serdesForStore` >> method, but it's listed in the "Rejected Alternatives" section. >> >> Thanks, >> Bill >> >> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:22 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: >> >> > Thanks for the KIP, John! >> > >> > +1 (binding) >> > >> > Best, >> > Bruno >> > >> > On 19.11.21 18:04, Vasiliki Papavasileiou wrote: >> > > I think this KIP will greatly improve how we handle IQ in streams so +1 >> > > (non-binding) from me. >> > > >> > > Thank you John! >> > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:45 PM Patrick Stuedi >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > +1 (non-binding), thanks John! >> > > > -Patrick >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:27 AM John Roesler >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hello all, >> > > > > >> > > > > I'd like to open the vote for KIP-796, which proposes >> > > > > a revamp of the Interactive Query APIs in Kafka Streams. >> > > > > >> > > > > The proposal is here: >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/34xnCw >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks to all who reviewed the proposal, and thanks in >> > > > > advance for taking the time to vote! >> > > > > >> > > > > Thank you, >> > > > > -John >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
Re: [VOTE} KIP-796: Interactive Query v2
Thanks for voting and for the discussion, all! The vote on KIP-796 passes with: 3 binding +1 (Bruno, Bill, and myself) 2 non-binding +1 (Patrick and Vasiliki) no vetoes The vote is now closed. If anyone has objections later on, please raise them, though! We will proceed with a series of pull requests to implement the framework, and we will also propose one or more small KIPs to propose specific queries. Thanks again, -John On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 12:11 -0500, Bill Bejeck wrote: > Thanks for the well-detailed KIP, John. > > It's a +1 (binding) from me. > > I want to point out one thing which I think is an oversight. The "Example > Raw Query" scan includes a line using the `kafkaStreams.serdesForStore` > method, but it's listed in the "Rejected Alternatives" section. > > Thanks, > Bill > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:22 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: > > > Thanks for the KIP, John! > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > Best, > > Bruno > > > > On 19.11.21 18:04, Vasiliki Papavasileiou wrote: > > > I think this KIP will greatly improve how we handle IQ in streams so +1 > > > (non-binding) from me. > > > > > > Thank you John! > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:45 PM Patrick Stuedi > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 (non-binding), thanks John! > > > > -Patrick > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:27 AM John Roesler > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to open the vote for KIP-796, which proposes > > > > > a revamp of the Interactive Query APIs in Kafka Streams. > > > > > > > > > > The proposal is here: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/34xnCw > > > > > > > > > > Thanks to all who reviewed the proposal, and thanks in > > > > > advance for taking the time to vote! > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE} KIP-796: Interactive Query v2
Thanks for the well-detailed KIP, John. It's a +1 (binding) from me. I want to point out one thing which I think is an oversight. The "Example Raw Query" scan includes a line using the `kafkaStreams.serdesForStore` method, but it's listed in the "Rejected Alternatives" section. Thanks, Bill On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:22 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: > Thanks for the KIP, John! > > +1 (binding) > > Best, > Bruno > > On 19.11.21 18:04, Vasiliki Papavasileiou wrote: > > I think this KIP will greatly improve how we handle IQ in streams so +1 > > (non-binding) from me. > > > > Thank you John! > > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:45 PM Patrick Stuedi > > > wrote: > > > >> +1 (non-binding), thanks John! > >> -Patrick > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:27 AM John Roesler > wrote: > >> > >>> Hello all, > >>> > >>> I'd like to open the vote for KIP-796, which proposes > >>> a revamp of the Interactive Query APIs in Kafka Streams. > >>> > >>> The proposal is here: > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/34xnCw > >>> > >>> Thanks to all who reviewed the proposal, and thanks in > >>> advance for taking the time to vote! > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> -John > >>> > >> > > >
Re: [VOTE} KIP-796: Interactive Query v2
Thanks for the KIP, John! +1 (binding) Best, Bruno On 19.11.21 18:04, Vasiliki Papavasileiou wrote: I think this KIP will greatly improve how we handle IQ in streams so +1 (non-binding) from me. Thank you John! On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:45 PM Patrick Stuedi wrote: +1 (non-binding), thanks John! -Patrick On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:27 AM John Roesler wrote: Hello all, I'd like to open the vote for KIP-796, which proposes a revamp of the Interactive Query APIs in Kafka Streams. The proposal is here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/34xnCw Thanks to all who reviewed the proposal, and thanks in advance for taking the time to vote! Thank you, -John
Re: [VOTE} KIP-796: Interactive Query v2
I think this KIP will greatly improve how we handle IQ in streams so +1 (non-binding) from me. Thank you John! On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 9:45 PM Patrick Stuedi wrote: > +1 (non-binding), thanks John! > -Patrick > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:27 AM John Roesler wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > I'd like to open the vote for KIP-796, which proposes > > a revamp of the Interactive Query APIs in Kafka Streams. > > > > The proposal is here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/34xnCw > > > > Thanks to all who reviewed the proposal, and thanks in > > advance for taking the time to vote! > > > > Thank you, > > -John > > >
Re: [VOTE} KIP-796: Interactive Query v2
+1 (non-binding), thanks John! -Patrick On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:27 AM John Roesler wrote: > Hello all, > > I'd like to open the vote for KIP-796, which proposes > a revamp of the Interactive Query APIs in Kafka Streams. > > The proposal is here: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/34xnCw > > Thanks to all who reviewed the proposal, and thanks in > advance for taking the time to vote! > > Thank you, > -John >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-796: Interactive Query v2
Obviously, I will be voting +1 (binding) Thanks, -John On Wed, 2021-11-17 at 17:27 -0600, John Roesler wrote: > Hello all, > > I'd like to open the vote for KIP-796, which proposes > a revamp of the Interactive Query APIs in Kafka Streams. > > The proposal is here: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/34xnCw > > Thanks to all who reviewed the proposal, and thanks in > advance for taking the time to vote! > > Thank you, > -John
