Hi Renato On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:10 PM, <dev-digest-h...@gora.apache.org> wrote:
> > This is a part I am not understanding very well. You guys are saying > that legacy data is a problem, but why is this a problem if we haven't > been supporting Avro Union in the past? This is a new feature, not an > upgrade. And for what I am understanding, the second issue was on > marking as deprecated the support for Union data types. But then > again, if we are able to support Union data types, this would be the > first time. > Am I understanding things correctly here? Lewis? Alfonso? anyone else? > If we have previously defined the JSON Avro schemas not defining unions (which is current practice), then new schemas supporting avro unions will not be compatible with the legacy data. This is the problem right? Ok, I see. But what about unions with more than one type? shouldn't we > think in solving this once for all? > We also have to keep in mind that the same solution might not be > applicable to all data stores, but we should be able to provide the > same features across all the supported data stores. > This is very well put. It is clear that the implementations will differ considerably. We are moving in the right direction for Cassandra and HBase solutions, but currently lack Accumulo. Please see my other most recent thread on GORa-174. Thanks troops. Have a great weekend. Lewis
