[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-3759?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17724231#comment-17724231
]
Martin Tzvetanov Grigorov commented on AVRO-3759:
-------------------------------------------------
Please expand more on "That would significantly help users, as we can't use
enum variants as types in Rust".
I made some of the changes but so far I don't see the benefit. Just the
opposite I need to type more for each match arm, e.g.:
{code}
{code:java}
- Schema::Record { name, fields, .. } => {
+ Schema::Record(RecordSchema { name, fields, .. } ) => { {code}
> [Rust] Schema types inconsistency
> ---------------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-3759
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-3759
> Project: Apache Avro
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: rust
> Reporter: Fedor Telnov
> Priority: Major
>
> That is how Unions and Records are defined in apache-avro Rust crate:
>
> ```
> /// A `union` Avro schema.
> Union(UnionSchema),
> /// A `record` Avro schema.
> ///
> /// The `lookup` table maps field names to their position in the `Vec`
> /// of `fields`.
> Record {
> name: Name,
> aliases: Aliases,
> doc: Documentation,
> fields: Vec<RecordField>,
> lookup: BTreeMap<String, usize>,
> },
> ```
>
> That is inconsistent - one variant is defined with pattern Type(Type) which
> is VERY convenient(for instance, it allows one to use UnionSchema as type),
> and the other one(Record) is simply a struct variant, which is not very
> convenient. My proposition is to hide Record's body in RecordSchema type and
> use it here - just as you do with union. That would significantly help users,
> as we can't use enum variants as types in Rust. It can also be done with
> other schema types as well.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
