++

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:33 PM Rafael Fernandez <rfern...@google.com> wrote:

> Very strong +1
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 1:24 PM Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> We're looking at renaming the BeamRecord class
>> <https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4550>, that was used for columnar
>> data. There was sufficient discussion on the naming, that I want to make
>> sure the dev list is aware of naming plans here.
>>
>> BeamRecord is a columnar, field-based record. Currently it's used by
>> BeamSQL, and the plan is to use it for schemas as well. "Record" is a
>> confusing name for this class, as all elements in the Beam model are
>> referred to as "records," whether or not they have schemas. "Row" is a much
>> clearer name.
>>
>> There was a lot of discussion whether to name this BeamRow or just plain
>> Row (in the org.apache.beam.values namespace). The argument in favor of
>> BeamRow was so that people aren't forced to qualify their type names in the
>> case of a conflict with a Row from another package. The argument in favor
>> of Row was that it's a better name, it's in the Beam namespace anyway, and
>> it's what the rest of the world (Cassandra, Hive, Spark, etc.) calls
>> similar classes.
>>
>> RIght not consensus on the PR is leaning to Row. If you feel strongly,
>> please speak up :)
>>
>> Reuven
>>
>

Reply via email to