[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1485?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13940423#comment-13940423
]
Martin Kleppmann commented on AVRO-1485:
----------------------------------------
I think you're right -- all implementations, not just Java, should allow the
name of any named type (record, enum, fixed) as type of a field. So this looks
like a bug in the spec.
In addition, a field can be of a primitive type, or a union. So the most
accurate would probably be to say that the type of a field can be any [schema
declaration|http://avro.apache.org/docs/1.7.6/spec.html#schemas].
> Specification says Record field type can be record name but implementation
> allows any named type.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: AVRO-1485
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-1485
> Project: Avro
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: java, spec
> Affects Versions: 1.7.6
> Reporter: Sean Busbey
>
> The [specification for Record
> fields|http://avro.apache.org/docs/1.7.6/spec.html#schema_record] says that
> the type is
> bq. A JSON object defining a schema, or a JSON string naming a record
> definition (required).
> AFAICT, the Java implementation allows for any [named
> type|http://avro.apache.org/docs/1.7.6/spec.html#Names].
> The specification should be updated to state any named type is allowed or the
> Java implementation should restrict what can be used. The former seems less
> likely to disturb current users.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
