Re: [VOTE] FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Operator Metrics

2021-08-04 Thread Becket Qin
I am with Thomas on the contextual usage of metrics as well. That is the "global" variable usage I was trying to explain in the discussion thread. Thanks, Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 1:59 AM Thomas Weise wrote: > I agree with Becket. Although I find the use of gauge to pass co

Re: [VOTE] FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Operator Metrics

2021-08-04 Thread Thomas Weise
I agree with Becket. Although I find the use of gauge to pass contextual information less intuitive, it is acceptable within the metric group interface (plus javadoc). Thanks, Thomas On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 10:06 PM Becket Qin wrote: > Personally speaking, it is intuitive for me to set a gauge i

[RESULT] [VOTE] FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Operator Metrics

2021-08-04 Thread Arvid Heise
Dear devs, I'm happy to announce that we have unanimously approved this FLIP. There are 4 approving votes of which 3 are binding: Steven Wu (non-binding) Jiangjie (Becket) Qin (binding) Chesnay Schepler (binding) Thomas Weise (binding) Best, Arvid On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 7:06 AM Becket Qin wro

Re: [VOTE] FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Operator Metrics

2021-08-03 Thread Becket Qin
Personally speaking, it is intuitive for me to set a gauge in MetricGroup. So I am fine with set*Gauge pattern as long as the method is in *MetricGroup class. Thanks, Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 7:24 PM Arvid Heise wrote: > @Becket Qin @Thomas Weise would > you > also agree

Re: [VOTE] FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Operator Metrics

2021-08-03 Thread Arvid Heise
@Becket Qin @Thomas Weise would you also agree to @Chesnay Schepler 's proposal? I think the main intention is to only use a Gauge when the exact metric is exposed. For any partial value that may be used in an internal/predefined metric, we would only use a supplier instead of a Gauge. So a co

Re: [VOTE] FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Operator Metrics

2021-08-03 Thread Thomas Weise
+1 (binding) On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:58 AM Chesnay Schepler wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Although I still think all the set* methods should accept a Supplier > instead of a Gauge. > > On 02/08/2021 12:36, Becket Qin wrote: > > +1 (binding). > > > > Thanks for driving the efforts, Arvid. > > > > C

Re: [VOTE] FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Operator Metrics

2021-08-03 Thread Chesnay Schepler
+1 (binding) Although I still think all the set* methods should accept a Supplier instead of a Gauge. On 02/08/2021 12:36, Becket Qin wrote: +1 (binding). Thanks for driving the efforts, Arvid. Cheers, Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu wrote: +1 (non-bind

Re: [VOTE] FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Operator Metrics

2021-08-02 Thread Becket Qin
+1 (binding). Thanks for driving the efforts, Arvid. Cheers, Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 12:08 PM Steven Wu wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 3:55 AM Arvid Heise wrote: > > > Dear devs, > > > > I'd like to open a vote on FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Ope

Re: [VOTE] FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Operator Metrics

2021-07-30 Thread Steven Wu
+1 (non-binding) On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 3:55 AM Arvid Heise wrote: > Dear devs, > > I'd like to open a vote on FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Operator Metrics > [1] which was discussed in this thread [2]. > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours unless there is an objection > or not enough

[VOTE] FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Operator Metrics

2021-07-30 Thread Arvid Heise
Dear devs, I'd like to open a vote on FLIP-179: Expose Standardized Operator Metrics [1] which was discussed in this thread [2]. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours unless there is an objection or not enough votes. The proposal excludes the implementation for the currentFetchEventTimeLag