[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-358?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12874183#action_12874183
]
Doug Cutting commented on AVRO-358:
-----------------------------------
Some thoughts:
- Seems to me that 0-2 together form a base level. Anything less does not
seem useful.
- 3 (data files) and 4-6 (rpc) are independent. An implementation might
reasonably implement 4-6 but not 3. Do we mean to prohibit such
implementations?
- 4 isn't really useful on its own.
- you don't mention json-format
So I might instead opt to list the following independent features that an
implementation might support:
- read/write binary-format
- read/write json-format
- read/write data files
- rpc client
- rpc server
We could then suggest that implementations implement data files and rpc clients
first. They'll need to implement binary-format to do this. The json-format
should generally be the last thing to implement. But all that we should
require is that, if an implementation claims to support a feature, that it
conform to the spec when doing so.
> Specify "levels" of Avro implementation in the spec
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-358
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-358
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: spec
> Reporter: Jeff Hammerbacher
>
> We've discussed on IRC having well-defined "levels" of implementation for the
> Avro spec, so that we can track the maturity of an implementation in each
> language. We should get to work on specifying these levels more precisely and
> writing them into the specification.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
