The name doesn't matter. We mostly left it there for backward compatibility,
for both specifying schemas and for UDFs. I do think we should make sure we
ignore it everywhere (including equality for schemas).
Alan.
On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Jonathan Coveney wrote:
> This is related to an issue I'll probably be emailing about once I isolate
> it, but I was curious what the philosophy is around the name of the tuple
> that is in a bag.
>
> example:
> Schema s1 =
> Utils.getSchemaFromString("b:bag{t:tuple(name:chararray,age:int)}");
>
> In pig8, you had the whole two level access nonsense, so let's ignore that.
> In pig9, the tuple name seemed to be preserved, and would print with
> toString.
> In trunk, the schema object throws away that name, and it doesn't print.
>
> I'm curious if there is any reason to keep it around, esp. given you can
> just do Schema.equals(s1,s2,false,true) for equality without field names,
> not to mention the fact that the name never really is going to matter since
> a bag only has one element and it is a tuple.
>
> Thanks!
> Jon
