I agree, go with whats best in Avro and the CoSC always seemed like a hack.
IMHO moving to avro is a good opportunity to make breaking changes. Clients will need to be re-coded anyway.
Aaron
On 02 Sep, 2010,at 04:37 AM, Jeremy Hanna <jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Right. We could get rid of it with avro. We just wanted to make sure that for client developers there weren't hidden downsides we weren't considering.
On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Nick Telford wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> I believe CoSC only exists because Thrift cannot handle inheritance? If avro
> does, then surely it would make sense to diverge from the Thrift API in
> order to create something a little easier to work with.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick Telford
>
> On 1 September 2010 15:52, Jeremy Hanna <jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We're doing some work today to help Avro implementation along and the topic
>> of ColumnOrSuperColumn came up.
>>
>> Would people be happy or sad if Avro didn't have the ColumnOrSuperColumn
>> and instead had two different classes for that purpose? Then in whatever
>> language you would cast an object to either Column or SuperColumn.
>>
>> That is, would it help or hinder client development to diverge between Avro
>> and Thrift in that way?
