-Re: Effort towards Avro 2.0?
Philip Zeyliger 2013-12-02, 21:56
It sounds like you're proposing to break language API compatibility. Are
you also proposing to break wire compatibility for Avro HTTP RPC, Avro
Netty RPC, and/or Avro datafiles?
I'd be appreciative of a mechanism by which systems that happen to use Avro
currently need not be forced to choose one version or another. (One
approach to this is to use a different package name.)
As for adding to your list, I'd like to see a code-generated API for
Python. (We like to call these APIs "specific" but I find that terminology
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Christophe Taton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi all,
> Avro, in its current form, exhibits a number of limitations that are hard
> to work with or around, and hard to fix within the scope of Avro 1.x :
> fixing these issues would introduce incompatible changes that warrant a
> major version bump, ie. Avro 2.0. An Avro 2.0 branch would be an
> opportunity to address most issues that appeared held back for
> compatibility purposes so far.
> I would like to initiate an effort in this direction and I am willing to
> do the necessary work to gather and organize requirements, and draft a
> design document for what Avro 2.0 would look like. For this reason, if you
> have opinions regarding an Avro 2.0 branch or regarding issues and features
> that could fit in Avro 2.0, please reply to this thread.
> To bootstrap, below is a list I gathered over the last couple of years
> from several discussions:
> - Specification
> - Improved support for unions (incompatible change with named unions
> and union properties).
> - New extension data type, similar to ProtocolBuffer extensions
> (incompatible change).
> - Clear separation between Avro schema (data format) and specific
> API client concerns: for example, the way Avro strings are exposed through
> the Java API should not pollute the schema definition. Each particular Java
> client should configure their own decoders with the way they want Avro
> strings to be represented.
> - Clarification of compatibility and type promotion (safe lossless
> conversions vs. best-effort lossy conversions): promoting int to float
> potentially loses precision, which is not necessarily acceptable for all
> clients. Avro decoders should let clients configure which mode they need.
> - IDL
> - Generalized IDL for Avro schemas.
> - Support for recursive records.
> - Meta-schema : IDL definition for a schema.
> - Java API
> - Truly immutable schema objects (no properties / hashcode mutation
> after construction).
> - Immutable records.
> - Complete record builder API (current record builders do not play
> well with nested records).
> - Complete generic API (there currently is no GenericUnion or
> - Improved unions support : union values as java.lang.Object are
> less than ideal; union values could expose the union branch through an enum
> (nulls could be handled specifically).
> - Python 3 support
> - RPC
> - SASL support
> - Full Python/Java parity and interoperability.
> Please, comment or extend this list. Provided enough interest, I'll
> happily digest feedback and organize it into a document (most likely a wiki