[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-2021?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15977506#comment-15977506
]
Luke Cwik commented on BEAM-2021:
---------------------------------
I believe CoderEncoder interface lives in core construction (or another
module...) and that implementers in other modules just give us
byte[]/bytebuffer which we can decode to be an any.proto.
This way they can depend on and shade proto version and always give us
byte[]/bytebuffer which we can then decode to our version of an Any proto.
> Fix Java's Coder class hierarchy
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: BEAM-2021
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-2021
> Project: Beam
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: beam-model-runner-api, sdk-java-core
> Affects Versions: First stable release
> Reporter: Kenneth Knowles
> Assignee: Thomas Groh
>
> This is thoroughly out of hand. In the runner API world, there are two paths:
> 1. URN plus component coders plus custom payload (in the form of component
> coders alongside an SdkFunctionSpec)
> 2. Custom coder (a single URN) and payload is serialized Java. I think this
> never has component coders.
> The other base classes have now been shown to be extraneous: they favor
> saving ~3 lines of boilerplate for rarely written code at the cost of
> readability. Instead they should just be dropped.
> The custom payload is an Any proto in the runner API. But tying the Coder
> interface to proto would be unfortunate from a design perspective and cannot
> be done anyhow due to dependency hell.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
