Sorry for increasing the confusion with my e-mail. When you said
"JavaScript" I understand you mean now "JSON".
It sounds like in Java you will want to have a specialized union that
cannot have nested types as its children. Perhaps this could implement
a more generic union API, but I will leave
I'm using javascript as an adjective, sorry about the confusion Paul. And
maybe JSON would be a better adjective (but neither is good).
With your example of two Binary vectors that have different metadata, yes
the single-primitive model would argue that they should either be a single
binary
>
> I may have missed something, but I'm not remembering either the points
> re: JavaScript or decimals. My understanding is that we have been
> discussing how to handle a union-of-complex-types -- the Union
> implementation in Java does not support this. Could you clarify or
> refer to prior
hi Jacques,
> - We have outstanding questions around union type. I think the main on is the
> javascript type. Given the inability to support the desired behavior for
> decimal type, I suggest we remove this capability before 1.0.
I may have missed something, but I'm not remembering either the
A couple of outstanding questions around format that I think we need to
cover before 1.0
- We have outstanding questions around union type. I think the main one
is the javascript type. Given the inability to support the desired behavior
for decimal type, I suggest we remove this
