cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam Holmberg (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Comment Edited] (CASSANDRA-10365) Consider storing types by their CQL names in schema tables instead of fully-qualified internal class names
Date Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:02:06 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10365?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14953572#comment-14953572
] 

Adam Holmberg edited comment on CASSANDRA-10365 at 10/12/15 7:01 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------------

bq. Repeated each time for each use of the UT everywhere?

That was the thought, yes. From your response I gather that this suggestion is ridiculous.
I'm not familiar with all the touch points, but I was hoping it wouldn't be much harder to
maintain than the current cassandra type string, which fully specifies the type. For example:
{code}
org.apache.cassandra.db.marshal.UserType(test,74797031,7630:org.apache.cassandra.db.marshal.Int32Type,7631:org.apache.cassandra.db.marshal.UserType(test,74797030,7630:org.apache.cassandra.db.marshal.Int32Type,7631:org.apache.cassandra.db.marshal.Int32Type))
{code}
I was wondering aloud if we could abstract that, but still have the type fully-specified in
place. The most obvious downside is that there would then be yet another string representation
of types.


was (Author: aholmber):
That was the thought, yes. From your response I gather that this suggestion is ridiculous.
I'm not familiar with all the touch points, but I was hoping it wouldn't be much harder to
maintain than the current cassandra type string, which fully specifies the type. For example:
{code}
org.apache.cassandra.db.marshal.UserType(test,74797031,7630:org.apache.cassandra.db.marshal.Int32Type,7631:org.apache.cassandra.db.marshal.UserType(test,74797030,7630:org.apache.cassandra.db.marshal.Int32Type,7631:org.apache.cassandra.db.marshal.Int32Type))
{code}
I was wondering aloud if we could abstract that, but still have the type fully-specified in
place. The most obvious downside is that there would then be yet another string representation
of types.

> Consider storing types by their CQL names in schema tables instead of fully-qualified
internal class names
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-10365
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10365
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Aleksey Yeschenko
>            Assignee: Aleksey Yeschenko
>              Labels: client-impacting
>             Fix For: 3.0.0 rc2
>
>
> Consider saving CQL types names for column, UDF/UDA arguments and return types, and UDT
components.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message