cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sylvain Lebresne (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-10365) Consider storing types by their CQL names in schema tables instead of fully-qualified internal class names
Date Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:22:05 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10365?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14954916#comment-14954916
] 

Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-10365:
----------------------------------------------

bq. if the goal is to hide implementation details

Who said it was the only goal? It's a goal, but avoiding too much unnecessary repetitions
is also a goal. Of course, not making too hard on client implementors is also a goal. That
said, I'm still wondering what is so hard about resolving UDTs. If you're going to read the
columns definition, what's so hard about reading the type definitions first? I understand
it's slightly less convenient but coming up with a new ad hoc notation just for that isn't
terribly clean imo. Are you guys really that scared by a small indirection? 

> 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