Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Avro, mail # dev - Re: Effort towards Avro 2.0?


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Effort towards Avro 2.0?
Douglas Creager 2013-12-04, 16:07
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 07:49 AM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Christophe Taton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - New extension data type, similar to ProtocolBuffer extensions (incompatible change).
>
> Extensions might be implemented as something like:
>
>   {"type":"record", "name":"extension", "fields":[
>     {"name":"fingerprint", "type": {"type":"fixed", "size":16}},
>     {"name":"payload", "type":"bytes"}
>     ]
>   }

I'd also want to know more about the kind of use cases that you'd need
protobuf-style extensions for.  I like Doug's solution if each record
can have a different set of extensions.  If all of the records will have
the same set of extensions, my hunch is that you'd only need to use
extra fields and schema resolution.  Either way, I can't think of a use
case where a new data type in the spec is a noticeable improvement.

–doug