avro-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Blue <rb...@netflix.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Avro union compatibility mode enhancement proposal
Date Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:52:25 GMT
Isn't the problem that these changes aren't compatible right now anyway? If
I need to add an entry to an enum right now, older readers fail when trying
to handle that data. This creates a way to avoid that failure in new

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Doug Cutting <cutting@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Matthieu Monsch <monsch@alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
> > + For unions, we will add an optional catch-all attribute to mark a
> branch as resolution target when no names or aliases match (and come up
> with the corresponding syntax).
> Can this be compatible?  If you add a new union syntax (e.g.,
> {"type":"union", "branches":[...], "default":...}) then existing
> implementations will not be able to read new data that uses this
> feature.
> Doug

Ryan Blue
Software Engineer

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