+1 for RAW. I agree that this is clearer than OPAQUE (which I initially proposed).
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:33 AM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 to rename ANY. > > I don't have strong opinion on the new name. I think "OPAQUE" is fine, > because it is introduced in IBM Informix and Oracle. > In Informix, it says [1]: > > "An opaque data type is fully encapsulated; the database server does not know > about the internal format of an opaque data type. > Therefore, the database server cannot make assumptions about how to access a > column having an opaque data type. > The database developer defines a data structure that holds the opaque-type > information and support functions > that tell the database server how to access this data structure." > > So, I think "opaque" is fine here. > > Another option is "RAW" which is introduced by Oracle [2] represents data > that is not to be interpreted by system . > > Best, > Jark > > [1]: > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGU8G_11.70.0/com.ibm.esqlc.doc/ids_esqlc_0357.htm > [2]: > https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/datatype.htm#CNCPT613 > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 15:49, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> I prefer OPAQUE compared to ANY because any is often the root object in an >> object hierarchy and would indicate to users the wrong thing. >> >> Aljoscha >> >> > On 18. Oct 2019, at 18:41, Xuefu Z <usxu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Thanks to Timo for bringing up an interesting topic. >> > >> > Personally, "OPAQUE" doesn't seem very intuitive with respect to types. (It >> > suits pretty well to glasses, thought. :)) Anyway, could we just use >> > "UNKNOWN", which is more explicit and true reflects its nature? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Xuefu >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 7:51 AM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> >> Stephan pointed out that our naming of a generic/blackbox/opaque type in >> >> SQL might be not intuitive for users. As the term ANY rather describes a >> >> "super-class of all types" which is not the case in our type system. Our >> >> current ANY type stands for a type that is just a blackbox within SQL, >> >> serialized by some custom serializer, that can only be modified within >> >> UDFs. >> >> >> >> I also gathered feedback from a training instructor and native English >> >> speaker (David in CC) where I received the following: >> >> >> >> "The way I’m thinking about this is this: there’s a concept here that >> >> people have to become aware of, which is that Flink SQL is able to >> >> operate generically on opaquely typed things — and folks need to be able >> >> to connect what they see in code examples, etc. with this concept (which >> >> they may be unaware of initially). >> >> I feel like ANY misses the mark a little bit, but isn’t particularly >> >> bad. I do worry that it may cause some confusion about its purpose and >> >> power. I think OPAQUE would more clearly express what’s going on." >> >> >> >> Also resources like Wikipedia [1] show that this terminology is common: >> >> >> >> "a data type whose concrete data structure is not defined [...] its >> >> values can only be manipulated by calling subroutines that have access >> >> to the missing information" >> >> >> >> I would therefore vote for refactoring the type name because it is not >> >> used much yet. >> >> >> >> Implications are: >> >> >> >> - a new parser keyword "OPAQUE" and changed SQL parser >> >> >> >> - changes for logical type root, logical type visitors, and their usages >> >> >> >> What do you think? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Timo >> >> >> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opaque_data_type >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Xuefu Zhang >> > >> > "In Honey We Trust!" >>
