Christophe Taton 2013-07-14, 02:01
Perhaps I'm missing part of the original intent for this enhancement, but couldn't users define a record to wrap a single union type if so desired? The (binary) encoding would be identical.
On Jul 13, 2013, at 21:01, Christophe Taton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm toying with a few changes to provide alternative representations of union fields in Java (somewhat related to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-248).
> To experiment with this, I'd like to set properties on union schemas, but properties are currently disabled on unions.
> Is there a particular reason for this, or is it a reasonable change to allow properties on unions?
Christophe Taton 2013-07-15, 17:57
Doug Cutting 2013-07-15, 18:25
Christophe Taton 2013-07-16, 07:40
Doug Cutting 2013-07-16, 18:13
Christophe Taton 2013-07-18, 17:23
Doug Cutting 2013-07-18, 18:29