Perhaps I'm missing part of the original intent for this enhancement, but couldn't users define a record to wrap a single union type if so desired? The (binary) encoding would be identical. -- Connor
On Jul 13, 2013, at 21:01, Christophe Taton <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > I'm toying with a few changes to provide alternative representations of union > fields in Java (somewhat related to > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-248). > To experiment with this, I'd like to set properties on union schemas, but > properties are currently disabled on unions. > Is there a particular reason for this, or is it a reasonable change to allow > properties on unions? > Thanks, > C.
