Thank you Reuven for the response! I'll update the design doc to include adding support for the generic classes. As for the new reflection API that's what I propose in the doc as well, it seems like the right choice.
By codegen path you mean using bytebuddy to generate the constructor and the getters? I was going to follow the existing code just as you suggest, including the codegen path (generally extending the GetterBasedSchemaProvider) - should I explicitly add a paragraph or two about the code generation to my doc? Thanks, Maciej On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 7:20 PM Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote: > Some initial thoughts: > > Making schema inference handle generic classes would be a nice improvement > - users occasionally bump into this restriction, and there's no reason not > to improve it. > > I would recommend using the new Java reflection APIs (i.e. > getRecordComponents) to directly infer the schema. I think we'll end up > with less error-prone code that way. > > We should still use the codegen path for generating efficient Row objects > here, otherwise Record classes will end up being significantly less > efficient than regular Java objects. Since I believe that Record classes > expand out into normal classes, we should be able to reuse the existing > code (i.e. JavaFieldSchema.java and PojotUtils.java) with maybe some small > modifications. > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 8:03 AM Maciej Szwaja via dev <dev@beam.apache.org> > wrote: > >> Hi team, >> >> I'd like to propose a new java sdk extension feature, which is adding >> support for java record schema inference - see the design doc here: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zSQ9cnqtVM8ttJEuHBDE6hw4qjUuJy1dpZWB6IBTuOs/edit?usp=sharing >> >> In short - adding this extension's jar to the classpath would enable >> users to use java 17 record classes as elements of the PCollections simply >> by annotating them with DefaultSchema annotation (pointing to the new >> RecordSchema provider) similarly to how it's currently possible with >> JavaBean or AutoValue classes. >> >> Let me know what you think, there's already an open feature request >> created last year (https://github.com/apache/beam/issues/27802), I >> could simply take it and start working on it if the proposal gets approved >> >> Thanks, >> Maciej >> >
