[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-2019?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16159986#comment-16159986
]
Bridger Howell commented on AVRO-2019:
--------------------------------------
Isn't the way {{logicalType}} decorators work on types in IDL just a natural
consequence of how IDL treats _any_ decorator on a type as a JSON property for
that type, combined with the meaning of that field in the spec?
I think this intent is expressed clearly enough in the IDL documentation
"Annotation Ordering and Namespaces" (perhaps this section title is a bit too
specific):
{quote}
Java-style annotations may be used to add additional properties to types and
fields throughout Avro IDL.
{quote}
(Some details on specific properties/annotations)
{quote}
Some annotations like those listed above are handled specially. All other
annotations are added as properties to the protocol, message, schema or field.
{quote}
I don't think I found a great generic/shared test of this, but there are at
least a few spots where the the set of tests ran by
{{org.apache.avro.compiler.idl.TestIdl}} show off this kind of behavior.
For the IDL input {{simple.avdl}}, I see a case where the type of a field
declared like:
{{@foo("bar") MD5 hash = "0000000000000000";}}
has the property {{"foo": "bar"}}.
> Improve documentation for logical type annotations in IDL
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-2019
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-2019
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: doc, logical types
> Reporter: Andrew Rosca
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: AVRO-2019.patch
>
>
> The IDL documentation lacks information for how annotations can be specified
> for logical types, like in the following example:
> {code}
> protocol test {
> record test {
> @logicalType("timestamp-millis")
> long time;
> }
> }
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
