[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-248?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12784376#action_12784376
]
Philip Zeyliger commented on AVRO-248:
--------------------------------------
I like naming unions. So, +1 to the general idea.
Should we name the branches of the union? i.e., a union is pretty much the
same as a record, except instead of all the fields being set, exactly one field
is set. Admittedly, the names would often be boring, but that's true anyway.
FWIW, Thrift unions (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-409) support
that syntax. It would be sensible if unions and records were to have the same
syntax, except for the "type".
We could easily enough continue supporting anonymous unions (for backwards
compatibility), but, yes this would be an incompatible change.
> make unions a named type
> ------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-248
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-248
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: spec
> Reporter: Doug Cutting
> Assignee: Doug Cutting
> Fix For: 1.3.0
>
>
> Unions are currently anonymous. However it might be convenient if they were
> named. In particular:
> - when code is generated for a union, a class could be generated that
> includes an enum indicating which branch of the union is taken, e.g., a union
> of string and int named Foo might cause a Java class like {code}
> public class Foo {
> public static enum Type {STRING, INT};
> private Type type;
> private Object datum;
> public Type getType();
> public String getString() { if (type==STRING) return (String)datum; else
> throw ... }
> public void setString(String s) { type = STRING; datum = s; }
> ....
> }
> {code} Then Java applications can easily use a switch statement to process
> union values rather than using instanceof.
> - when using reflection, an abstract class with a set of concrete
> implementations can be represented as a union (AVRO-241). However, if one
> wishes to create an array one must know the name of the base class, which is
> not represented in the Avro schema. One approach would be to add an
> annotation to the reflected array schema (AVRO-242) noting the base class.
> But if the union itself were named, that could name the base class. This
> would also make reflected protocol interfaces more consise, since the base
> class name could be used in parameters return types and fields.
> - Generalizing the above: Avro lacks class inheritance, unions are a way to
> model inheritance, and this model is more useful if the union is named.
> This would be an incompatible change to schemas. If we go this way, we
> should probably rename 1.3 to 2.0. Note that AVRO-160 proposes an
> incompatible change to data file formats, which may also force a major
> release.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
