[email protected] liked your message with Boxer. On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at
01:29 PM, Christopher wrote:On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Ed Kohlwey
wrote:>> It would be very nice if the types you mentioned were more
consistent>> across the API. Personally I would like to see byte[] and
ByteSequence>> fully supported across all of the APIs related to reading and
writing data.>> We added support for byte[] to mutation in 1.5. Thinking back,
we should>> have added support for ByteSequence too.>>> +1. If we make
everything tie back to ByteSequence and make the> serialization/deserialization
logic pluggable, then everyone will be happy.> Do you have any ideas based on
the sketch I included that would help make> this better for all types, not just
byte[]?I'd be very cautious about making *everything* tie back toByteSequence.
Some things, are more constrained than bytes... such asColumn Visibilities,
which we assume are human-readable strings, andit'd be more appropriate to tie
it back to CharSequence thanByteSequence in the API, even though internally
it's just bytes. Thebytes we store for this should really be UTF8-encoded
characters.Table names are another place where we use Text sometimes in the
APIto refer to something containing a String/CharSequence and cannot
bearbitrary bytes... though I don't think your proposal affects thatpart of the
API as much.--Christopher L Tubbs IIhttp://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
