Christophe Taton 2013-04-15, 18:23
Doug Cutting 2013-04-15, 20:08
Scott Carey 2013-04-15, 19:46
Christophe Taton 2013-04-15, 21:21
Doug Cutting 2013-04-15, 22:43
Christophe Taton 2013-04-18, 20:18
Doug Cutting 2013-04-22, 20:19
Scott Carey 2013-04-16, 04:19
-Re: Could specific records implement the generic API as well?
Christophe Taton 2013-04-16, 04:39
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Scott Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to figure out how to make SpecificRecord and GenericRecord
> immutable in the longer term (or as an option with the code generation
> and/or builder). The builder is the first step, but setters are the
> enemy. Is there a way to do this that does not introduce new mutators for
> all SpecificRecords?
That's fair. Getters only would work for what I need, assuming setters will
eventually come through builders.
And Immutable records would be great!
On 4/15/13 3:43 PM, "Doug Cutting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Christophe Taton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> If you think it's a meaningful addition, I'm happy to make the change.
> >The two methods I wrote above could be added to SpecificRecordBase and
> >it could then be declared to implement GenericRecord.
> >I think GenericRecordBuilder could be used to build specific records
> >with a few additional changes:
> > - change the type of the 'record' field from GenericData.Record to
> > - replace the call to 'new GenericData.Record()' to
> >'(GenericRecord)data().newRecord(null, schema())'
> > - add a constructor that accepts a GenericData instance, instead of
> >calling GenericData.get().
> >Then you could use new GenericRecordBuilder(SpecificData.get(),
> >schema) to create specific records.
Christophe Taton 2013-04-17, 05:30
Pankaj Shroff 2013-04-17, 14:16