asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Jacobs <sjaco...@ucr.edu>
Subject Re: Metadata changes
Date Mon, 14 Dec 2015 19:35:49 GMT
It could easily be done as reverse-compatible, but my thinking was that
this is the "wrong" choice. I can easily make the datatype dataverse an
open field for the metadata. The question is, why do we have open vs closed
fields for metadata at all? If it is okay for them to be open, should we
get rid of the schema entirely? if it's not okay, then shouldn't this field
be closed? From a design standpoint it seems that if reverse compatibility
were not an issue than the field should be closed.
Steven

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Ildar Absalyamov <
ildar.absalyamov@gmail.com> wrote:

> If fix for 2) will break the backwards-compatibility 1) might do that as
> well and be submitted together.
>
> Now 2) was a long overdue problem, I don’t think there is any reason even
> to try make changes backwards-compatible, because it was broken in the
> first place.
>
> > On Dec 14, 2015, at 11:16, Steven Jacobs <sjaco002@ucr.edu> wrote:
> >
> > It's a new attribute, but it's a closed field, which means it isn't
> > backwards compatible.
> > Steven
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Ian Maxon <imaxon@uci.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> For 1), I guess the question is whether it would be a backwards
> >> compatible change. Since it's just a new attribute (right?...), and it
> >> is also sort of a new feature rather than a fix for something that was
> >> critically broken, I would tend toward putting it on master. If it's
> >> not backwards compatible though maybe it needs more careful
> >> consideration.
> >>
> >> -Ian
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Steven Jacobs <sjaco002@ucr.edu>
> wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>> I'm implementing a change so that datasets can use datatypes from
> >> alternate
> >>> data verses (previously the type and set had to be from the same
> >>> dataverse). Unfortunately this means another change for Dataset
> Metadata
> >>> (which will now store the dataverse for its type).
> >>>
> >>> As such, I had a couple of questions:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Should this change be thrown into the release branch, as it is
> another
> >>> Metadata change?
> >>>
> >>> 2) In implementing this change, I've been looking at the Metadata
> >> secondary
> >>> indexes. I had a discussion with Ildar, and it seems the thread on
> >> Metadata
> >>> secondary indexes being "hacked" has been lost. Is this also something
> >> that
> >>> should get into the release? Is there anyone currently looking at it?
> >>>
> >>> Steven
> >>
>
> Best regards,
> Ildar
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message