[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7813?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14105630#comment-14105630
]
Jason Brown commented on CASSANDRA-7813:
----------------------------------------
I'm with [~thobbs] on favoring option #3. Requiring a namespace seems like the
most sane/reasonable manner for UDFs. I'm also in agreement about not allowing
an empty namespace for functions. The *only* contrary case we might want to
make to that is for the native functions, but then it's just a shorthand and
probably more confusing than anything. Someone might bitch about having to
prefix every native function use with "cassandra::" (or whatever we choose the
native namespace to be), but it will always be clear to future readers.
> Decide how to deal with conflict between native and user-defined functions
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-7813
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7813
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
> Labels: cql
> Fix For: 3.0
>
>
> We have a bunch of native/hardcoded functions (now(), dateOf(), ...) and in
> 3.0, user will be able to define new functions. Now, there is a very high
> change that we will provide more native functions over-time (to be clear, I'm
> not particularly for adding native functions for allthethings just because we
> can, but it's clear that we should ultimately provide more than what we
> have). Which begs the question: how do we want to deal with the problem of
> adding a native function potentially breaking a previously defined
> user-defined function?
> A priori I see the following options (maybe there is more?):
> # don't do anything specific, hoping that it won't happen often and consider
> it a user problem if it does.
> # reserve a big number of names that we're hoping will cover all future need.
> # make native function and user-defined function syntactically distinct so it
> cannot happen.
> I'm not a huge fan of solution 1). Solution 2) is actually what we did for
> UDT but I think it's somewhat less practical here: there is so much types
> that it makes sense to provide natively and so it wasn't too hard to come up
> with a reasonably small list of types name to reserve just in case. This
> feels a lot harder for functions to me.
> Which leaves solution 3). Since we already have the concept of namespaces for
> functions, a simple idea would be to force user function to have namespace.
> We could even allow that namespace to be empty as long as we force the
> namespace separator (so we'd allow {{bar::foo}} and {{::foo}} for user
> functions, but *not* {{foo}} which would be reserved for native function).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
