My first thought is that Row shouldn't need to be serializable at all. However it's possible that we have a dependency in some code on it being serializable. Worth testing it out to see what breaks.
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:55 AM Alex Van Boxel <a...@vanboxel.be> wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that RowWithGetters and FieldValueGetter are both serializable > (all in package org.apache.beam.sdk.values). I do have my doubt if they > should be. > > Certainly RowWithGetters would be problematic: > > - it references the underlying object that could be anything and it's *not > guaranteed* Serializable. In my case I'm referring a Protobuf message > that is not. > - the FieldValueGetter should also not be Serializable as they are > generated by the factory. I'm implementing Getters that also needs > FieldDescriptors to access the underlying dynamic Protobuf fields, > FieldDescriptors are also not serializable. > > The *only* class that should be serializable is RowWithStorage as the > current implementation will convert any type of Row to this as soon as a > serialization step needs to happen. > > Thoughts?! If you all agree, I'll create a ticket and fix this, as this is > a bit blocking my implementation of Protobuf (as it wont pass SpotBug > complaining on non serializable fields in FieldValueGetter). > > _/ > _/ Alex Van Boxel >
