Shouldnt the discussion on schema which has a direct impact on this generic
container be closed before any action on this?

Le 3 févr. 2018 01:09, "Ankur Chauhan" <an...@malloc64.com> a écrit :

> ++
> 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