You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Next »

This page is meant as a template for writing a KIP. To create a KIP choose Tools->Copy on this page and modify with your content and replace the heading with the next KIP number and a description of your issue. Replace anything in italics with your own description.

Status

Current state: (DRAFT) "Under Discussion"

Discussion thread: here [Change the link from the KIP proposal email archive to your own email thread]

JIRA: here [Change the link from KAFKA-1 to your own ticket]

Please keep the discussion on the mailing list rather than commenting on the wiki (wiki discussions get unwieldy fast).

Motivation

As the Kafka Streams DSL has evolved, some of the APIs have become very overload heavy. For example, we have 8 different overloads for KStream#print. As we add more overloads it becomes harder for a developer using a modern IDE to discover the interfaces hence interrupting the flow and becoming an API usability issue.

Further, we'd like to provide users with a way to override certain StateStore features on a per operator basis, for example, enable caching or logging, for some but not all StateStores. Without a change in approach to the DSL this would add yet more overloads for every operation. Additionally, it should be simple to use the KafkaStreams Caching and Logging wrappers with custom StateStores. 

Before we go and add many more overloaded methods it is worth while exploring other options to see if we can provide a more concise and intuitive API.

Public Interfaces

KStream
void print(final PrintOptions<K, V> printOptions);

KStream<K, V> through(final String topic, final Topic<K, V> topicOptions);

void to(final String topic, final Topic<V, V> topicOptions);

KGroupedStream<K, V> groupByKey(final GroupByOptions<K, V> groupByOptions);

<KR> KGroupedStream<KR, V> groupBy(final KeyValueMapper<? super K, ? super V, KR> selector, GroupByOptions<KR, V> groupByOptions);

<VO, VR> KStream<K, VR> join(final KStream<K, VO> other, final ValueJoiner<? super V, ? super VO, ? extends VR> joiner, final JoinWindows windows, final JoinOptions<K, V, VO> options);

<VT, VR> KStream<K, VR> join(final KTable<K, VT> other, final ValueJoiner<? super V, ? super VT, ? extends VR> joiner, final JoinOptions<K, V, VT> options);

<VO, VR> KStream<K, VR> leftJoin(final KStream<K, VO> other, final ValueJoiner<? super V, ? super VO, ? extends VR> joiner, final JoinWindows windows, final JoinOptions<K, V, VO> options);

<VT, VR> KStream<K, VR> leftJoin(final KTable<K, VT> other, final ValueJoiner<? super V, ? super VT, ? extends VR> joiner, final JoinWindows windows, final JoinOptions<K, V, VT> options);

<VO, VR> KStream<K, VR> outerJoin(final KStream<K, VO> other, final ValueJoiner<? super V, ? super VO, ? extends VR> joiner, final JoinWindows windows, final JoinOptions<K, V, VO> options);

<VT, VR> KStream<K, VR> outerJoin(final KTable<K, VT> other, final ValueJoiner<? super V, ? super VT, ? extends VR> joiner, final JoinWindows windows, final JoinOptions<K, V, VT> options);

 

Proposed Changes

Describe the new thing you want to do in appropriate detail. This may be fairly extensive and have large subsections of its own. Or it may be a few sentences. Use judgement based on the scope of the change.

Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan

  • What impact (if any) will there be on existing users?
  • If we are changing behavior how will we phase out the older behavior?
  • If we need special migration tools, describe them here.
  • When will we remove the existing behavior?

Rejected Alternatives

If there are alternative ways of accomplishing the same thing, what were they? The purpose of this section is to motivate why the design is the way it is and not some other way.

  • No labels