Retrieving the Queryable Store from the KTable is a possibility, i.e., you
could have something like:
QueryableStore store = ktable.queryableStore();
Where QueryableStore (i'm making these names up and not suggesting we use
them) is just a proxy to the underlying stores. This would be useful for
local queries of the store, but we'd still need some way of locating the
'remote' stores.
Gwen, thanks for the input! I think you suggestion of hints works well with
Matthias` suggestion of using a builder pattern instead of many overloaded
methods. Though i think this is a broader discussion than just the KTable
API. Anyway, i think we should explore this a bit further.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 at 08:46 Eno Thereska <eno.there...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Gwen, Jan,
So in addition to behaving as a hint, providing a state store name (in
materialize or overloaded) allows the user to subsequently query by using
that name. KTables have internal names, largely opaque to the users. When
doing distributed queries with IQ, a state store name is needed to perform
the query. So I'm not sure we can get rid of the state store name, or if we
do, we'd have to let users name their KTables.
Eno
> On 27 Jan 2017, at 21:35, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> Another vote in favor of overloading. I think the streams API actually
> trains users quite well in realizing the implications of adding a
> state-store - we need to figure out the correct Serde every single
> time :)
>
> Another option: "materialize" behaves almost as a SQL hint - i.e.
> allows a user to control an implementation detail while working inside
> a DSL that usually hides them. We should consider that this may not be
> the last hint we'll need ("cache results", "predicate pushdown", hash
> join vs merge join, etc), but in most cases, we won't be able to infer
> a hint from the existence of an argument like state-store name.
> Mathias suggestion to make .materialize() a top level method is
> awkward precisely because it doesn't fit into the DSL model very well,
> but if we have a generalized way to "hint" at operations, this could
> be a good fit.
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Michael Noll <mich...@confluent.io>
wrote:
>> Like Damian, and for the same reasons, I am more in favor of overloading
>> methods rather than introducing `materialize()`.
>> FWIW, we already have a similar API setup for e.g.
>> `KTable#through(topicName, stateStoreName)`.
>>
>> A related but slightly different question is what e.g. Jan Filipiak
>> mentioned earlier in this thread:
>> I think we need to explain more clearly why KIP-114 doesn't propose the
>> seemingly simpler solution of always materializing tables/state stores.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Jan Filipiak <jan.filip...@trivago.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Yeah its confusing, Why shoudn't it be querable by IQ? If you uses the
>>> ValueGetter of Filter it will apply the filter and should be completely
>>> transparent as to if another processor or IQ is accessing it? How can
this
>>> new method help?
>>>
>>> I cannot see the reason for the additional materialize method being
>>> required! Hence I suggest leave it alone.
>>> regarding removing the others I dont have strong opinions and it seems
to
>>> be unrelated.
>>>
>>> Best Jan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26.01.2017 20:48, Eno Thereska wrote:
>>>
>>>> Forwarding this thread to the users list too in case people would like
to
>>>> comment. It is also on the dev list.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Eno
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Matthias J. Sax" <matth...@confluent.io>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-114: KTable materialization and improved
>>>>> semantics
>>>>> Date: 24 January 2017 at 19:30:10 GMT
>>>>> To: d...@kafka.apache.org
>>>>> Reply-To: d...@kafka.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> That not what I meant by "huge impact".
>>>>>
>>>>> I refer to the actions related to materialize a KTable: creating a
>>>>> RocksDB store and a changelog topic -- users should be aware about
>>>>> runtime implication and this is better expressed by an explicit method
>>>>> call, rather than implicitly triggered by using a different overload
of
>>>>> a method.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/24/17 1:35 AM, Damian Guy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think your definition of a huge impact and mine are rather
different
>>>>>> ;-P
>>>>>> Overloading a few methods is not really a huge impact IMO. It is
also a
>>>>>> sacrifice worth making for readability, usability of the API.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 at 17:55 Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand your argument, but do not agree with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your first version (even if the "flow" is not as nice) is more
explicit
>>>>>>> than the second version. Adding a stateStoreName parameter is quite
>>>>>>> implicit but has a huge impact -- thus, I prefer the rather more
>>>>>>> verbose
>>>>>>> but explicit version.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/23/17 1:39 AM, Damian Guy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of materialize. I think it interrupts the flow, i.e,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> table.mapValue(..).materialize().join(..).materialize()
>>>>>>>> compared to:
>>>>>>>> table.mapValues(..).join(..)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know which one i prefer.
>>>>>>>> My preference is stil to provide overloaded methods where people
can
>>>>>>>> specify the store names if they want, otherwise we just generate
them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 at 05:30 Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks for the KIP Eno! Here are my 2 cents:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1) I like Guozhang's proposal about removing store name from all
>>>>>>>>> KTable
>>>>>>>>> methods and generate internal names (however, I would do this as
>>>>>>>>> overloads). Furthermore, I would not force users to call
>>>>>>>>> .materialize()
>>>>>>>>> if they want to query a store, but add one more method
>>>>>>>>> .stateStoreName()
>>>>>>>>> that returns the store name if the KTable is materialized. Thus,
also
>>>>>>>>> .materialize() must not necessarily have a parameter storeName
(ie,
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> should have some overloads here).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would also not allow to provide a null store name (to indicate
no
>>>>>>>>> materialization if not necessary) but throw an exception.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This yields some simplification (see below).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2) I also like Guozhang's proposal about KStream#toTable()
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. What will happen when you call materialize on KTable that is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> materialized? Will it create another StateStore (providing the
>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> different), throw an Exception?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Currently an exception is thrown, but see below.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we follow approach (1) from Guozhang, there is no need to
worry
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> a second materialization and also no exception must be throws. A
>>>>>>>>> call to
>>>>>>>>> .materialize() basically sets a "materialized flag" (ie,
idempotent
>>>>>>>>> operation) and sets a new name.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rename toStream() to toKStream() for consistency.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not sure whether that is really required. We also use
>>>>>>>>>> `KStreamBuilder#stream()` and `KStreamBuilder#table()`, for
example,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> don't care about the "K" prefix.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eno's reply:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think changing it to `toKStream` would make it absolutely clear
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we are converting it to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd say we should probably change the KStreamBuilder methods (but
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this KIP).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would keep #toStream(). (see below)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 5) We should not remove any methods but only deprecate them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A general note:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do not understand your comments "Rejected Alternatives". You say
>>>>>>>>> "Have
>>>>>>>>> the KTable be the materialized view" was rejected. But your KIP
>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>> does exactly this -- the changelog abstraction of KTable is
secondary
>>>>>>>>> after those changes and the "view" abstraction is what a KTable
is.
>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>> just to be clear, I like this a lot:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - it aligns with the name KTable
>>>>>>>>> - is aligns with stream-table-duality
>>>>>>>>> - it aligns with IQ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would say that a KTable is a "view abstraction" (as
>>>>>>>>> materialization is
>>>>>>>>> optional).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/22/17 5:05 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP Eno, I have a few meta comments and a few
>>>>>>>>>> detailed
>>>>>>>>>> comments:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. I like the materialize() function in general, but I would
like to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> how other KTable functions should be updated accordingly. For
example,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> KStreamBuilder.table(..) has a state store name parameter, and we
will
>>>>>>>>>> always materialize the KTable unless its state store name is set
to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> null;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) KTable.agg requires the result KTable to be materialized, and
hence
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> also have a state store name; 3) KTable.join requires the joining
>>>>>>>>>> table
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> be materialized. And today we do not actually have a mechanism to
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> enforce
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that, but will only throw an exception at runtime if it is not
(e.g.
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> have "builder.table("topic", null).join()" a RTE will be thrown).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd make an extended proposal just to kick off the discussion
here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> let's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> remove all the state store params in other KTable functions, and
if in
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cases KTable have to be materialized (e.g. KTable resulted from
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> KXX.agg)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and users do not call materialize(), then we treat it as "users are
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> interested in querying it at all" and hence use an internal name
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> generated
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> for the materialized KTable; i.e. although it is materialized the
>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>> store is not exposed to users. And if users call materialize()
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> afterwards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but we have already decided to materialize it, we can replace the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> internal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> name with the user's provided names. Then from a user's
point-view,
>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ever want to query a KTable, they have to call materialize()
with a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> state store name. This approach has one awkwardness though, that
>>>>>>>>>> serdes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> state store names param are not separated and could be overlapped
>>>>>>>>>> (see
>>>>>>>>>> detailed comment #2 below).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. This step does not need to be included in this KIP, but just
as a
>>>>>>>>>> reference / future work: as we have discussed before, we may
enforce
>>>>>>>>>> materialize KTable.join resulted KTables as well in the future.
If
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that, then:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a) KXX.agg resulted KTables are always materialized;
>>>>>>>>>> b) KTable.agg requires the aggregating KTable to always be
>>>>>>>>>> materialized
>>>>>>>>>> (otherwise we would not know the old value);
>>>>>>>>>> c) KTable.join resulted KTables are always materialized, and so
are
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> joining KTables to always be materialized.
>>>>>>>>>> d) KTable.filter/mapValues resulted KTables materialization
depend
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> parent's materialization;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> By recursive induction all KTables are actually always
materialized,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then the effect of the "materialize()" is just for specifying the
>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>> store names. In this scenario, we do not need to send Change<V>
in
>>>>>>>>>> repartition topics within joins any more, but only for
repartitions
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> topics
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> within aggregations. Instead, we can just send a "tombstone"
without
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> old value and we do not need to calculate joins twice (one more
time
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> old value is received).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 3. I'm wondering if it is worth-while to add a
"KStream#toTable()"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> which is interpreted as a dummy-aggregation where the new value
>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>> replaces the old value. I have seen a couple of use cases of
this,
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> example, users want to read a changelog topic, apply some
filters,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> materialize it into a KTable with state stores without creating
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> duplicated
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> changelog topics. With materialize() and toTable I'd imagine
users
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> specify sth. like:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>> KStream stream = builder.stream("topic1").filter(..);
>>>>>>>>>> KTable table = stream.toTable(..);
>>>>>>>>>> table.materialize("state1");
>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the library in this case could set store "state1" 's
changelog
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> be "topic1", and applying the filter on the fly while
(re-)storing
>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>> state by reading from this topic, instead of creating a second
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> changelog
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> topic like "appID-state1-changelog" which is a semi-duplicate of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "topic1".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Detailed:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. I'm +1 with Michael regarding "#toStream"; actually I was
>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> renaming to "#toChangeLog" but after thinking a bit more I think
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> #toStream
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is still better, and we can just mention in the javaDoc that it
is
>>>>>>>>>> transforming its underlying changelog stream to a normal stream.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. As Damian mentioned, there are a few scenarios where the
serdes
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> already specified in a previous operation whereas it is not known
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> calling materialize, for example:
>>>>>>>>>> stream.groupByKey.agg(serde).materialize(serde) v.s.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> table.mapValues(/*no
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> serde specified*/).materialize(serde). We need to specify what are
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> handling logic here.
>>>>>>>>>> 3. We can remove "KTable#to" call as well, and enforce users to
>>>>>>>>>> call "
>>>>>>>>>> KTable.toStream.to" to be more clear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Guozhang
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Eno Thereska <
>>>>>>>>>> eno.there...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think changing it to `toKStream` would make it absolutely clear
>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> are converting it to.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd say we should probably change the KStreamBuilder methods
(but
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this KIP).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>> Eno
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17 Jan 2017, at 13:59, Michael Noll <mich...@confluent.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rename toStream() to toKStream() for consistency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure whether that is really required. We also use
>>>>>>>>>>>> `KStreamBuilder#stream()` and `KStreamBuilder#table()`, for
>>>>>>>>>>>> example,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> don't care about the "K" prefix.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Eno Thereska <
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> eno.there...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Damian, answers inline:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 16 Jan 2017, at 17:17, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Eno,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the KIP. Some comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. I'd probably rename materialized to materialize.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. I don't think the addition of the new Log compaction
mechanism
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> necessary for this KIP, i.e, the KIP is useful without it. Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> should be a different KIP?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed, already removed. Will do a separate KIP for that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. What will happen when you call materialize on KTable that
is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> materialized? Will it create another StateStore (providing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> different), throw an Exception?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently an exception is thrown, but see below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Have you considered overloading the existing KTable
operations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state store name? So if a state store name is provided,
then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> materialize
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a state store? This would be my preferred approach as i don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> materialize is always a valid operation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok I can see your point. This will increase the KIP size since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> to enumerate all overloaded methods, but it's not a problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. The materialize method will need ta value Serde as some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> i.e., mapValues, join etc can change the value types
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4609 - might
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always need to materialize the StateStore for KTable-KTable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> joins.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the case, then the KTable Join operators will also need
Serde
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll update the KIP with the serdes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eno
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 at 16:44 Eno Thereska <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eno.there...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We created "KIP-114: KTable materialization and improved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> solidify the KTable semantics in Kafka Streams:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 114%3A+KTable+materialization+and+improved+semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 114:+KTable+materialization+and+improved+semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your feedback is appreciated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eno
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gwen Shapira
> Product Manager | Confluent
> 650.450.2760 <(650)%20450-2760> | @gwenshap
> Follow us: Twitter | blog
