Wrapping unions in records is possible, but appears very inconvenient in
several ways (both from the user's and the implementation's perspective).
Union is the only schema type for which properties are turned off, and I
cannot find any documentation or reason for it.
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Connor Doyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> 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?