Hi Vinoth,
>much of the code actually does not depend on the templatized type at all
Agree.
Let's say I'm ok with untyped HoodieRecordPayload since all payload is
effectively untyped(Object) which we deal with type and cast at runtime.
Though, it is noisy we implement it in a half-generic form. Meanwhile,
wildcard doesn't work for every case since <? capture HoodieRecordPayload>
is NOT compatible with <? capture HoodieRecordPayload> and any
exact T extends HoodieRecordPayload.
We don't actually use the type parameter heavily, so it is an alternative
that we define HoodieRecordPayload just
public class HoodieRecordPayload { }
If the community think it is a worth effort, I'm glad to do more
investigation
and evaluate its impact, also find a practical way.
Best,
tison.
Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> 于2020年4月22日周三 下午2:22写道：
> Hi Tison,
>
> Thanks for raising this.. In most places doing a HoodieTable<?> wildcard
> should be totally acceptable, since much of the code actually does not
> depend on the templatized type at all..
>
> Def, worth taking another look holistically and see if we can address
> this..
>
> My 2c.
> Vinoth
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:32 PM tison <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi developers,
> >
> > Recently when I went through Hudi codebase, I found some annoying warning
> > 'raw use of
> > parameterized class' and some other generic type related.
> >
> > It seems the root of this wide usage of raw type is HoodieRecordPayload
> > where
> >
> > HoodieRecordPayload<T extends HoodieRecordPayload>
> >
> > should have been
> >
> > HoodieRecordPayload<T extends HoodieRecordPayload<T>>
> >
> > I'm not sure what community think of this wide usage of raw type and
> given
> > it affect most of our
> > code I'd like to start this thread for advice. Personally explicit type
> > signature benefits from strong
> > type system but it might cause some signature breaking changes as well as
> > require a huge
> > engineering effort.
> >
> > Shall Hudi live with these raw types? Or we will have a plan migrate to
> > explicit generic type?
> >
> > Best,
> > tison.
> >
>
