This is a core part of SQL which is ongoing. On Feb 2, 2018 11:45 PM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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" <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> ++ >> >> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:33 PM Rafael Fernandez <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Very strong +1 >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:24 PM Reuven Lax <[email protected]> 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 >>>> >>>
