[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-18202?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17165170#comment-17165170
]
Zou commented on FLINK-18202:
-----------------------------
Hi [~libenchao] , here's my point:
1.1 I think it is convenient for both users and devs if we could derive table
schema according to proto definition.
1.2 I prefer 'compiled proto class' , and maybe we should restrict the protobuf
version used to compile the class.
1.3 Shall we do a simple performance test for both options? I am inclined to
DynamicMessage if there is no significant performance difference.
Futher more, maybe we shoule discuss the default value for miss fields in
protobuf (such as oneof fields), should we use `null` or PB default value to
handle this. I prefer the former.
> Introduce Protobuf format
> -------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-18202
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-18202
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Formats (JSON, Avro, Parquet, ORC, SequenceFile), Table
> SQL / API
> Reporter: Benchao Li
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: image-2020-06-15-17-18-03-182.png
>
>
> PB[1] is a very famous and wildly used (de)serialization framework. The ML[2]
> also has some discussions about this. It's a useful feature.
> This issue maybe needs some designs, or a FLIP.
> [1] [https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers]
> [2] [http://apache-flink.147419.n8.nabble.com/Flink-SQL-UDF-td3725.html]
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
