Thanks to Timo for bringing up an interesting topic.

Personally, "OPAQUE" doesn't seem very intuitive with respect to types. (It
suits pretty well to glasses, thought. :)) Anyway, could we just use
"UNKNOWN", which is more explicit and true reflects its nature?

Thanks,
Xuefu


On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 7:51 AM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Stephan pointed out that our naming of a generic/blackbox/opaque type in
> SQL might be not intuitive for users. As the term ANY rather describes a
> "super-class of all types" which is not the case in our type system. Our
> current ANY type stands for a type that is just a blackbox within SQL,
> serialized by some custom serializer, that can only be modified within
> UDFs.
>
> I also gathered feedback from a training instructor and native English
> speaker (David in CC) where I received the following:
>
> "The way I’m thinking about this is this: there’s a concept here that
> people have to become aware of, which is that Flink SQL is able to
> operate generically on opaquely typed things — and folks need to be able
> to connect what they see in code examples, etc. with this concept (which
> they may be unaware of initially).
> I feel like ANY misses the mark a little bit, but isn’t particularly
> bad. I do worry that it may cause some confusion about its purpose and
> power. I think OPAQUE would more clearly express what’s going on."
>
> Also resources like Wikipedia [1] show that this terminology is common:
>
> "a data type whose concrete data structure is not defined [...] its
> values can only be manipulated by calling subroutines that have access
> to the missing information"
>
> I would therefore vote for refactoring the type name because it is not
> used much yet.
>
> Implications are:
>
> - a new parser keyword "OPAQUE" and changed SQL parser
>
> - changes for logical type root, logical type visitors, and their usages
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Timo
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opaque_data_type
>
>
>

-- 
Xuefu Zhang

"In Honey We Trust!"

Reply via email to