opwvhk commented on PR #1411: URL: https://github.com/apache/avro/pull/1411#issuecomment-1207710997
No, the intent was for plain fields only. Unions cannot work (Avro does not supportunions of unions), and collections hardly ever distinguish between 'empty' and 'absent' (I've seen it once in the past 20 years). More important though, is the syntax if it were supported: a question mark after a closing `>` or `}` doesn't exactly stand out. As a result, I've chosen for the new syntax to work for plain fields, and leave optional collections to the previous "union with null" syntax. Do you know a compelling argument that overrides the syntax argument? This is an opinionated choice, and open for discussion IMHO, but I really think this is the better choice. Mostly due to -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
