The idea is that "field set" is the direct equivalent of super column. No internal changes there.
Not every record set will have field sets; some will just have fields. Evan On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Mark McBride<[email protected]> wrote: > One question, how are super columns handled here? Is it just nested > field sets? That's the only potential confusion I see. > > ---Mark > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Viktor Klang<[email protected]> wrote: >> +1, makes much more sense. >> >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Curt Micol <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Evan Weaver<[email protected]> wrote: >>> > I think the below scheme successfully avoids the current >>> > misconceptions, and addresses the issues raised in the previous >>> > thread. >>> >>> +1 from me. I also offer my services on the name change. >>> >>> -- >>> # Curt Micol >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Viktor Klang >> >> Rogue Scala-head >> >> Blog: klangism.blogspot.com >> Twttr: viktorklang >> > -- Evan Weaver
