Thanks, I should have a PR up in the next few days for the spec. On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:57 AM Ryan Skraba <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm certain that the Java implementation doesn't validate full names > correctly (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-2659 has a fun > example). This should be an easy fix, I'll give it a go. > > A PR to clarify the spec on this point would be welcome! > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:47 PM Micah Kornfield <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I'm happy to make PR clarifying this. I'm a little bit concerned that if > > validation doesn't exist in Java (and maybe other languages today) if we > > make the spec stricter it could break users. How has the community > handled > > issues like this in the past? > > > > Would someone familiar with the Java implementation be able to comment if > > there is validation around this (I couldn't find it on a quick search)? > > > > Thanks, > > Micah > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 9:23 AM Doug Cutting <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, the intent was to prohibit namespaces starting with a dot. > > > > > > <empty> | (<name>((<dot><name>)*)) was the intended grammar. > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:50 AM Ryan Skraba <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello! Hmmm... reading through the spec (again), there is a small > > > > ambiguous point! Good catch! > > > > > > > > Specifically, it specifically says that ".a" is not a valid namespace > > > > attribute: > > > > > > > > "A namespace is a dot-separated sequence of such [non-empty] names. > > > > The empty string may also be used as a namespace ..." > > > > > > > > But it could be a valid full name: made from a valid namespace (the > > > > empty string) and a valid name. > > > > > > > > I suspect that the original intention was that it should not be a > > > > valid fullname, with the consequence that all valid fullnames are > > > > valid Java class names. > > > > > > > > If it *were* a valid fullname, however, it would be useful to > > > > distinguish between specifying the default namespace versus > inheriting > > > > a namespace from a parent record! As far as I can tell, this > > > > behaviour isn't implemented anywhere or specified in the spec either. > > > > > > > > What do you think? The spec could be clarified either way. > > > > > > > > Ryan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 7:20 PM Micah Kornfield < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Avro Dev, > > > > > I think there is a little bit of ambiguity in the requirements for > the > > > > > namespace component of a full name in the specification [1]. In > > > > particular > > > > > it isn't clear whether namespaces like: > > > > > ".namespace" should be considered valid (i.e. a "null" namespace > > > > followed a > > > > > valid name). > > > > > > > > > > It appears the the C++ implementation does not think this is valid > [2] > > > > but > > > > > I couldn't find a corresponding check in the Java code base (I'm > still > > > > > familiarizing myself with both). > > > > > > > > > > Should ".namespace" be considered valid? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Micah > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://avro.apache.org/docs/current/spec.html > > > > > [2] > > > > > https://github.com/apache/avro/blob/master/lang/c%2B%2B/impl/Node.cc#L72 > > > > > > > >
