Thanks! I made a PR recently[1] to update the terminology in the thrift definitions. If you know of other places it is inconsistent please let me know and I will update it there too.
Andrew [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/256 On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 8:09 PM Muhammad Haseeb <mhas...@nvidia.com.invalid> wrote: > +1 on renaming to “rows” > > -- > Best Regards, > Muhammad Haseeb > > > From: Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> > Date: Monday, June 3, 2024 at 8:30 AM > To: d...@parquet.incubator.apache.org <d...@parquet.incubator.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Unify Record / Row terminology (to Row) > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On Fri, 31 May 2024 16:33:24 -0400 > Andrew Lamb <andrewlam...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I think the names of classes in the code can different than how the spec > > refers to the concepts, if the maintainers don't mind. In my mind, > changing > > the parquet.thrift file to use consistent terminology doesn't change the > > spec, nor will it require (or prevent) implementations from changing > their > > internal class names. > > +1 > > Regards > > Antoine. > >
