Bertrand Dechoux 2013-05-17, 12:46
Jeremy Kahn 2013-05-17, 14:10
Doug Cutting 2013-05-17, 19:11
After browsing the (nice) API, it seems indeed trivial.
The Idl class allows to read/parse the related file.
The Protocol object can then be requested from it.
Of course, the types can then be requested from the Protocol itself.
And then it is only a matter of serializing them. And actually the API
provides even a 'pretty' option.
I will definitely look at it (ie with javac). Contributing it as a tool
would be nice. But I won't go into the maven land.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's not a tool that does this currently. Note however that
> existing tools will generate Java classes for each type in an IDL
> file, so if you're only using Java then you might not need a .avsc
> file for each type in the IDL.
> It would not be hard to add a tool (or an option to an existing tool)
> that wrote a .avsc file for each type in an .avdl file. One could
> also add Maven support for this. If this is of interest, please file
> an issue in Jira.
> If you're willing and able, please provide an implementation.
> Otherwise hopefully someone else will help out.
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Jeremy Kahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The "types" field in a protocol (.avro) may get you what you need. The
> > corresponding schema objects should be able to render to well-formed avsc
> > objects.
> > On May 17, 2013 5:47 AM, "Bertrand Dechoux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> I have lots of avro schemas and most of them are about complex objects
> >> nested definition of stuff). The syntax of avro idl is attractive in
> >> to build something more readable and thus maintainable. However, it
> >> like I can't generate any avsc from a avdl (or the avpr generated from
> >> avdl). I understand what is a protocol and I don't need one but the idl
> >> syntax is really attractive. Is there really no way to use it for that
> >> purpose?
> >> Regards
> >> Bertrand
> >> PS : I remember seeing a discussion about that subject but I can't find
> >> it.
Bertrand Dechoux 2013-05-21, 21:44
Bertrand Dechoux 2013-06-18, 22:05