+1 Kind regards, Fokko
Op wo 19 mrt 2025 om 18:32 schreef Huang-Hsiang Cheng <hua...@apple.com.invalid>: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Mar 19, 2025, at 9:27 AM, Brian Hulette <bhule...@apache.org> wrote: > > +1 > > I double-checked why a JSON object was allowed in the first place. It > looks like the original motivation was to support PROJJSON, but we switched > to using projjson:<identifier> where <identifier> points to a table > property. > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 6:45 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < > etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 2:30 AM Gang Wu <ust...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Makes sense. >>> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:07 AM Jia Yu <ji...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 (non-binding) >>>> >>>> Thank you! >>>> >>>> On 2025/03/19 00:01:00 Szehon Ho wrote: >>>> > Hi everyone, >>>> > >>>> > While working on the reference implementation for Geometry/Geography >>>> spec, >>>> > we noticed some parts that can be simplified for this first version: >>>> > >>>> > 1. Default values should always be null (requires WKT serialization >>>> > logic, for not many real world use cases) >>>> > 2. JSON type serialization can be a json string, not a json object. >>>> > >>>> > I would like to raise a vote for this minor change to the V3 spec to >>>> the >>>> > geo types. The PR is: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/12533. >>>> > >>>> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >>>> > >>>> > [ ] +1 Add these simplifications to the V3 Geo spec >>>> > [ ] +0 >>>> > [ ] -1 I have questions and/or concerns >>>> > >>>> > Thanks, >>>> > Szehon >>>> > >>>> >>> >
