Any comments or remarks on this patch? 2015-02-15 22:22 GMT+01:00 Kasper Sørensen <[email protected]>:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/31066/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Review request for MetaModel. > > > Bugs: METAMODEL-79 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METAMODEL-79 > > > Repository: metamodel > > > Description > ------- > > Partial fix for METAMODEL-79 - see description > > > Diffs > ----- > > > elasticsearch/src/main/java/org/apache/metamodel/elasticsearch/ElasticSearchCreateTableBuilder.java > PRE-CREATION > > elasticsearch/src/main/java/org/apache/metamodel/elasticsearch/ElasticSearchDataContext.java > 06353f1 > > elasticsearch/src/main/java/org/apache/metamodel/elasticsearch/ElasticSearchDropTableBuilder.java > PRE-CREATION > > elasticsearch/src/main/java/org/apache/metamodel/elasticsearch/ElasticSearchInsertIntoBuilder.java > PRE-CREATION > > elasticsearch/src/main/java/org/apache/metamodel/elasticsearch/ElasticSearchUpdateCallback.java > PRE-CREATION > > elasticsearch/src/test/java/org/apache/metamodel/elasticsearch/ElasticSearchDataContextTest.java > 449490b > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/31066/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > This is my initial/partial fix for METAMODEL-79. I want to share it > because 1) there's more to come but I want to confirm that I'm on the right > way and 2) I have questions for experts on E.S. :-) > > This patch adds support for the MetaModel ElasticSearch to do INSERT INTO, > CREATE TABLE and DROP TABLE statements. > > It does not (yet) have support for UPDATE or DELETE FROM statements. I > wanted to validate my initial work first. > > And I have a few questions regarding types and mappings. > > * Please check the ElasticSearchCreateTableBuilder.getType(Column) > method. Here I've attempted to convert ColumnTypes to ElasticSearch types. > Are these correct? I am not sure about generalizations such as the NUMERIC > -> "double" mapping etc. > * As a last resort I have used the type "object". But when I tried it out > I ran into the problem that "object" is not polymorphic like in Java, it is > actually the opposite of a "value type". So that means you cannot define an > "object" field and then insert a single value into it. This makes it a bad > fit for a "fallback" type. Is there a better way? Should we then simply NOT > define the field in the mapping maybe? > > > Thanks, > > Kasper Sørensen > >
