On Tue, Dec 3, 2013, at 07:49 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Christophe Taton > <[email protected]> wrote: > > - New extension data type, similar to ProtocolBuffer extensions > > (incompatible change). > > Extensions might be implemented as something like: > > {"type":"record", "name":"extension", "fields":[ > {"name":"fingerprint", "type": {"type":"fixed", "size":16}}, > {"name":"payload", "type":"bytes"} > ] > }
I'd also want to know more about the kind of use cases that you'd need protobuf-style extensions for. I like Doug's solution if each record can have a different set of extensions. If all of the records will have the same set of extensions, my hunch is that you'd only need to use extra fields and schema resolution. Either way, I can't think of a use case where a new data type in the spec is a noticeable improvement. –doug
