That makes sense. "Parsing Canonical Form" talks only about the schema used in unmarshalling the payload and it does not involve projection and schema resolution with compatibility can not be represented with a fingerprint.
Thanks, Satish. On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Doug Cutting <[email protected]> wrote: > When reading data, two schemas are used: a schema with the same > fingerprint as used to write the data, typically the actual schema > used to write, and the schema you'd like to project to. Default > values are only used from the latter schema. > > Matching fingerprints indicate binary compatibility. Schema > resolution allows evolution to a schema with a different binary > format, i.e., with additional fields that specify a default value. > > Schema compatibility through resolution cannot be represented in a > single number like a fingerprint. > > Doug > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Satish Duggana > <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://avro.apache.org/docs/1.8.1/spec.html#Parsing+ > Canonical+Form+for+Schemas > >> Parsing Canonical Form is a transformation of a writer's schema that > let's > >> us define what it means for two schemas to be "the same" for the > purpose of > >> reading data written agains the schema. It is called Parsing Canonical > Form > >> because the transformations strip away parts of the schema, like "doc" > >> attributes, that are irrelevant to readers trying to parse incoming > data. It > >> is called Canonical Form because the transformations normalize the JSON > text > >> (such as the order of attributes) in a way that eliminates unimportant > >> differences between schemas. If the Parsing Canonical Forms of two > different > >> schemas are textually equal, then those schemas are "the same" as far > as any > >> reader is concerned, i.e., there is no serialized data that would allow > a > >> reader to distinguish data generated by a writer using one of the > original > >> schemas from data generated by a writing using the other original > schema. > >> (We sketch a proof of this property in a companion document.) > > > > > > Currently, it keeps only attributes of type, name, fields, symbols, > items, > > values, size and strips all others including default attribute. > > Should not default attribute also be kept? Because schema with default > value > > and without default value are not canonically same with respect to schema > > evolution. > > > > Thanks, > > Satish. > > >
