[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10365?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14955023#comment-14955023
]
Adam Holmberg commented on CASSANDRA-10365:
-------------------------------------------
No one said hiding implementation was the only goal. I was simply addressing
that point.
bq. what's so hard about reading the type definitions first? ... Are you guys
really that scared by a small indirection?
Everyone understands how this should work. My concern is that this changes the
metadata model, possibly requiring a complete view of all UDTs for resolving
types in other artifacts. It *should* be fine, but I think it makes the
metadata model more brittle from the client perspective, considering that async
schema change event propagation has been less than perfect. This will require
us to deal with the fact that type resolution could fail.
I might feel less strongly about this than some -- I think we have a way to
avoid parsing these CQL strings at all. However, I know some drivers refer
directly to these types in the model when binding UDTs for execution. Those
will require parsing and resolving, or and API change to avoid it.
> 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)
