[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-22?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12713611#action_12713611
]
Doug Cutting commented on AVRO-22:
----------------------------------
> What if the "request" schema of a Message always had the name "args", and the
> "response" schema always had the name "results".
RPC parameters are not the problem that's affecting Hong. He wishes to be able
to construct a union containing different versions of a record with the same
name (AVRO-23), but Avro will not parse a schema that contains multiple records
of the same name. As a work around, he's using anonymous records.
An alternative might be to somehow permit multiple records of the same name.
For example, the scope of a re-definition might be limited to references within
itself. Another alternative might be to rename records, so that Foo becomes
Foo1, Foo2, etc. However such approaches should be considered in AVRO-23, not
here.
> Kill anonymous records or fix GenericDatumReader
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-22
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-22
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: spec
> Reporter: Raymie Stata
> Assignee: Doug Cutting
> Fix For: 1.0
>
>
> Anonymous record names are a pain, can we get rid of them?
> If not, I think I noticed a bug in GenericDatumReader.resolveExpected:
> {noformat}
> if (branch.getType() == Type.RECORD) {
> String name = branch.getName();
> if (name == null || name.equals(actual.getName()))
> return branch;
> } else
> return branch;
> {noformat}
> This doesn't seem to require that _both_ are null to match: if the name of
> {{branch}} is null and the name {{actual}} is not, then we get a match, which
> I think is a bug.
> But again, let's just get rid of null names.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
