S Ahmed 2012-05-15, 13:38
Jay Kreps 2012-05-15, 15:24
What do you mean?
" I think the direction we are going
is instead to just let you co-locate this processing on the same box.
This gives the isolation of separate processes and the overhead of the
transfer over localhost is pretty minor. "
I see what your saying as it is a specific implemention/use case that
diverts from a general purpose mechanism, that's why I was suggesting maybe
a hook/event based system.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Jay Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah I see where you are going with that. We toyed with this idea, but
> the idea of coupling processing to the log storage raises a lot of
> problems for general purpose usage. I think the direction we are going
> is instead to just let you co-locate this processing on the same box.
> This gives the isolation of separate processes and the overhead of the
> transfer over localhost is pretty minor.
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:38 AM, S Ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would it be possible to filter the collection before it gets flush to
> > Say I am tracking page views per user, and I could perform a rollup
> > it gets flushed to disk (using a hashmap with the key being the
> > and increment a counter for the duplicate entries).
> > And could this be done w/o modifying the original source, maybe through
> > some sort of event/listener?
S Ahmed 2012-05-15, 15:43
S Ahmed 2012-05-17, 13:40
Jay Kreps 2012-05-17, 15:02
S Ahmed 2012-05-17, 21:32
Jay Kreps 2012-05-17, 22:34
S Ahmed 2012-05-29, 13:30