[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10365?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14954916#comment-14954916
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-10365:
----------------------------------------------
bq. if the goal is to hide implementation details
Who said it was the only goal? It's a goal, but avoiding too much unnecessary
repetitions is also a goal. Of course, not making too hard on client
implementors is also a goal. That said, I'm still wondering what is so hard
about resolving UDTs. If you're going to read the columns definition, what's so
hard about reading the type definitions first? I understand it's slightly less
convenient but coming up with a new ad hoc notation just for that isn't
terribly clean imo. Are you guys really that scared by a small indirection?
> Consider storing types by their CQL names in schema tables instead of
> fully-qualified internal class names
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-10365
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10365
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Aleksey Yeschenko
> Assignee: Aleksey Yeschenko
> Labels: client-impacting
> Fix For: 3.0.0 rc2
>
>
> Consider saving CQL types names for column, UDF/UDA arguments and return
> types, and UDT components.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
