“OPAQUE” seems a little strange to me. + 1 for ‘RAW’. Best, Terry Wang
> 2019年10月22日 09:19，Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com> 写道： > > +1 to RAW, if there's no better candidate comes up. > > Best, > Kurt > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:25 PM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I would also avoid `UNKNOWN` because of the mentioned reasons. >> >> I'm fine with `RAW`. I will wait another day or two until I conclude the >> discussion. >> >> Thanks, >> Timo >> >> >> On 21.10.19 12:23, Jark Wu wrote: >>> I also think `UNKNOWN` is not suitable here. >>> Because we already have `UNKNOWN` value in SQL, i.e. the three-valued >> logic >>> (TRUE, FALSE, UNKNOWN) of BOOLEAN type. >>> It will confuse users here, what's the relationship between them. >>> >>> Best, >>> Jark >>> >>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 17:53, Paul Lam <paullin3...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> IMHO, `UNKNOWN` does not fully reflects the situation here, because the >>>> types are >>>> actually “known” to users, and users just want to leave them out of >> Flink >>>> type system. >>>> >>>> +1 for `RAW`, for it's more intuitive than `OPAQUE`. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Paul Lam >>>> >>>>> 在 2019年10月21日，16:43，Kurt Young <ykt...@gmail.com> 写道： >>>>> >>>>> OPAQUE seems to be a little bit advanced to a lot non-english >>>>> speakers (including me). I think Xuefu raised a good alternative: >>>>> UNKNOWN. What do you think about it? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Kurt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 3:49 PM Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I prefer OPAQUE compared to ANY because any is often the root object >> in >>>> an >>>>>> object hierarchy and would indicate to users the wrong thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Aljoscha >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18. Oct 2019, at 18:41, Xuefu Z <usxu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks to Timo for bringing up an interesting topic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personally, "OPAQUE" doesn't seem very intuitive with respect to >> types. >>>>>> (It >>>>>>> suits pretty well to glasses, thought. :)) Anyway, could we just use >>>>>>> "UNKNOWN", which is more explicit and true reflects its nature? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Xuefu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 7:51 AM Timo Walther <twal...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stephan pointed out that our naming of a generic/blackbox/opaque >> type >>>> in >>>>>>>> SQL might be not intuitive for users. As the term ANY rather >>>> describes a >>>>>>>> "super-class of all types" which is not the case in our type system. >>>> Our >>>>>>>> current ANY type stands for a type that is just a blackbox within >> SQL, >>>>>>>> serialized by some custom serializer, that can only be modified >> within >>>>>>>> UDFs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I also gathered feedback from a training instructor and native >> English >>>>>>>> speaker (David in CC) where I received the following: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The way I’m thinking about this is this: there’s a concept here >> that >>>>>>>> people have to become aware of, which is that Flink SQL is able to >>>>>>>> operate generically on opaquely typed things — and folks need to be >>>> able >>>>>>>> to connect what they see in code examples, etc. with this concept >>>> (which >>>>>>>> they may be unaware of initially). >>>>>>>> I feel like ANY misses the mark a little bit, but isn’t particularly >>>>>>>> bad. I do worry that it may cause some confusion about its purpose >> and >>>>>>>> power. I think OPAQUE would more clearly express what’s going on." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also resources like Wikipedia [1] show that this terminology is >>>> common: >>>>>>>> "a data type whose concrete data structure is not defined [...] its >>>>>>>> values can only be manipulated by calling subroutines that have >> access >>>>>>>> to the missing information" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would therefore vote for refactoring the type name because it is >> not >>>>>>>> used much yet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Implications are: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - a new parser keyword "OPAQUE" and changed SQL parser >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - changes for logical type root, logical type visitors, and their >>>> usages >>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Timo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opaque_data_type >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Xuefu Zhang >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "In Honey We Trust!" >>>>>> >>>> >> >>
