Hi Shouldnt the discussion on schema which has a direct impact on this generic container be closed before any action on this?
Le 3 févr. 2018 01:09, "Ankur Chauhan" <an...@malloc64.com> a écrit : > ++ > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:33 PM Rafael Fernandez <rfern...@google.com> > wrote: > >> Very strong +1 >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:24 PM Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> We're looking at renaming the BeamRecord class >>> <https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4550>, that was used for columnar >>> data. There was sufficient discussion on the naming, that I want to make >>> sure the dev list is aware of naming plans here. >>> >>> BeamRecord is a columnar, field-based record. Currently it's used by >>> BeamSQL, and the plan is to use it for schemas as well. "Record" is a >>> confusing name for this class, as all elements in the Beam model are >>> referred to as "records," whether or not they have schemas. "Row" is a much >>> clearer name. >>> >>> There was a lot of discussion whether to name this BeamRow or just plain >>> Row (in the org.apache.beam.values namespace). The argument in favor of >>> BeamRow was so that people aren't forced to qualify their type names in the >>> case of a conflict with a Row from another package. The argument in favor >>> of Row was that it's a better name, it's in the Beam namespace anyway, and >>> it's what the rest of the world (Cassandra, Hive, Spark, etc.) calls >>> similar classes. >>> >>> RIght not consensus on the PR is leaning to Row. If you feel strongly, >>> please speak up :) >>> >>> Reuven >>> >>
