[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-839?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13060268#comment-13060268
]
James Baldassari commented on AVRO-839:
---------------------------------------
Thanks for the comments, Doug.
bq. The deepCopy() method would better be on GenericData than on Schema.
Sure, makes sense. I'll move it.
bq. I think there are a number of opportunities for optimization, but we can
leave those for subsequent patches.
Agreed. I did a quick performance test, and it looks like the builders are
about an order of magnitude slower than manually creating a specific record
instance. I'm not sure why, but I'll try profiling it. Maybe someone who is
more familiar with Avro internals can suggest some improvements.
bq. Do RecordBuilderBase#has(int), get(int) and set(int) need to be public?
Nope. I only made them public because get(int) and put(int, Object) are public
in IndexedRecord and SpecificRecordBase. I'll change these to be protected in
the builder interfaces/classes.
bq. it might be simpler and faster to have the builder to store things in an
IndexedRecord instance, rather than in an Object[]. Then the generated specific
builder methods could just do something like 'instance.foo = value'.
That's an interesting idea. I'll try it out and see if it improves anything.
However, the builders will still need to maintain that array of booleans for
keeping track of which fields have been set (simply checking for null won't
suffice because some types like unions can have null values). One other idea I
had was to replace the Object[] with a GenericData.Record so that less code
would be duplicated and the equals() method would work correctly.
> Implement builder pattern in generated record classes that sets default
> values when omitted
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-839
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-839
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: java
> Reporter: James Baldassari
> Assignee: James Baldassari
> Attachments: AVRO-839.patch
>
>
> This is an idea for an improvement to the SpecificCompiler-generated record
> classes. There are two main issues to address:
> # Default values specified in schemas are only used at read time, not when
> writing/serializing records. For example, a NullPointerException is thrown
> when attempting to write a record that has an uninitialized array or string
> type. I'm sure this was done for good reasons, like giving users maximum
> control and preventing unnecessary garbage collection, but I think it's also
> somewhat confusing and unintuitive for new users (myself included).
> # Users have to create their own factory classes/methods for every record
> type, both to ensure that all non-primitive members are initialized and to
> facilitate the construction and initialization of record instances (i.e.
> constructing and setting values in a single statement).
> These issues have been discussed previously here:
> * [http://search-hadoop.com/m/iDVTn1JVeSR1]
> * AVRO-726
> * AVRO-770
> * [http://search-hadoop.com/m/JuY1V16pwxh1]
> I'd like to propose a solution that is used by at least one other messaging
> framework. For each generated record class there will be a public static
> inner class called Builder. The Builder inner class has the same fields as
> the record class, as well as accessors and mutators for each of these fields.
> Whenever a mutator method is called, the Builder sets a boolean flag
> indicating that the field has been set. All mutators return a reference to
> 'this', so it's possible to chain a series of setter invocations, which makes
> it really easy to construct records in a single statement. The Builder also
> has a build() method which constructs a record instance using the values that
> were set in the Builder. When the build() method is invoked, if there are
> any fields that have not been set but have default values as defined in the
> schema, the Builder will set the values of these fields using their defaults.
> One nice thing about implementing the builder pattern in a static inner
> Builder class rather than in the record itself is that this enhancement will
> be completely backwards-compatible with existing code. The record class
> itself would not change, and the public fields would still be there, so
> existing code would still work. Users would have the option to use the
> Builder or continue constructing records manually. Eventually the public
> fields could be phased out, and the record would be made immutable. All
> changes would have to be done through the Builder.
> Here is an example of what this might look like:
> {code}
> // Person.newBuilder() returns a new Person.Builder instance
> // All Person.Builder setters return 'this' allowing us to chain set calls
> together for convenience
> // Person.Builder.build() returns a Person instance after setting any
> uninitialized values that have defaults
> Person me =
> Person.newBuilder().setName("James").setCountry("US").setState("MA").build();
> // We still have direct access to Person's members, so the records are
> backwards-compatible
> me.state = "CA";
> // Person has accessor methods now so that the public fields can be phased
> out later
> System.out.println(me.getState());
> // No NPE here because the array<Person> field that stores this person's
> friends has been automatically
> // initialized by the Builder to a new java.util.ArrayList<Person> due to a
> @java_class annotation in the IDL
> System.out.println(me.getFriends().size());
> {code}
> What do people think about this approach? Any other ideas?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
