rdblue commented on code in PR #8147:
URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/8147#discussion_r1275424218
##########
core/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/MetadataUpdate.java:
##########
@@ -23,11 +23,16 @@
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Set;
import org.apache.iceberg.relocated.com.google.common.collect.ImmutableSet;
+import org.apache.iceberg.relocated.com.google.common.collect.Maps;
+import org.apache.iceberg.view.ImmutableViewMetadata;
+import org.apache.iceberg.view.ViewVersion;
-/** Represents a change to table metadata. */
+/** Represents a change to table/view metadata. */
public interface MetadataUpdate extends Serializable {
void applyTo(TableMetadata.Builder metadataBuilder);
+ default void applyTo(ImmutableViewMetadata.Builder viewMetadataBuilder) {}
Review Comment:
@nastra, what is the benefit of Immutables here?
It looks like Immutables gives us a builder that doesn't do what we want
(hide the complexity) and forces us to put logic about record keeping in the
caller rather than in the builder. That's a major problem... so I'm skeptical
that the right solution is to use more Immutables and have _more_ builders that
add the functionality that we want.
Why don't we just scrap immutables here? It's been causing a lot of trouble.
--
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
