[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-680?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14066828#comment-14066828
]
Doug Cutting commented on AVRO-680:
-----------------------------------
This is looking good!
I am still concerned about the potential for name conflicts. If you have two
different non-string maps in two classes that reference each other then if you
get the schema for one record first the pairs will be named differently than if
you get the second first. Consider:
{code}
class R1 {
map<A,B>
@Nullable R2 r2;
}
class R2 {
map<C,D>
@Nullable R1 r1;
}
{code}
Also, the logic to create the non-string-key map schema might be moved to a
separate method rather than nested in the (already too large) getClass() method.
> Allow for non-string keys
> -------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-680
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-680
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 1.7.6, 1.7.7
> Reporter: Jeremy Hanna
> Attachments: non_string_map_keys.zip, non_string_map_keys2.zip
>
>
> Based on an email thread back in April, Doug Cutting proposed a possible
> solution for having non-string keys:
> Stu Hood wrote:
> > I can understand the reasoning behind AVRO-9, but now I need to look for an
> > alternative to a 'map' that will allow me to store an association of bytes
> > keys to values.
> A map of Foo has the same binary format as an array of records, each
> with a string field and a Foo field. So an application can use an array
> schema similar to this to represent map-like structures with, e.g.,
> non-string keys.
> Perhaps we could establish standard properties that indicate that a
> given array of records should be represented in a map-like way if
> possible? E.g.,:
> {"type": "array", "isMap": true, "items": {"type":"record", ...}}
> Doug
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
