robertwb commented on PR #28865:
URL: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/28865#issuecomment-1773491284

   > @robertwb -- I believe case sensitivity is important [ have seen that 
cause more problems and things harder to debug, than the user benefits of being 
insensitive, but ... ]. Is it time to choose whether we want YAML to use 
generally upper or lower case? We probably want go-to conventions.
   > [...]
   > I'll look in these a little deeper, in case we want to map upper to lower, 
etc ... but thought this might be worth calling out [ unless I'm just missing a 
connection in my mental model here ]. Related: I don't recall seeing this in 
the syntax doc. 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10tzBd6yeElucqLN07OI8MguSQYqvRCYhqgVIChjn67w/edit
   > 
   > Thoughts?
   
   Yeah, case sensitivity is a messy question. Here we're trying to represent 
an enum value (so there's no risk that `raw` and `RAW` and `Raw` are going to 
be miss-interpreted or should be kept distinct), and there isn't omnipresent 
IDE support to tell you when you've got it wrong (and no auto-complete either).
   
   Generally the conventions we have so far are that yaml keys (type, name, 
input, config, transforms, etc.) are (case-sensitive) snake_case (though 
preferring to go with one word), transform types are (again case-sensitive) 
CamelCase, and config parameters (like other keys) are also snake_case. For 
enum-style values, the one president we have is the "language" parameter for 
MapToFields (Filter, etc.) which is lower case (java, python, javacript, etc.) 
My prefernce would be to be consistent between that and this format parameter 
if we require specific casing there. 
   
   I could see this boiling down to a matter of preference though. Perhaps 
something to ask on the list? 


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to