+1 for RAW type, which is easy to guess its actual meaning, even for a new user.
Best, Weike On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 5:31 PM David Anderson <da...@ververica.com> wrote: > +1 for RAW. > > I agree that this is clearer than OPAQUE (which I initially proposed). > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:33 AM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > +1 to rename ANY. > > > > I don't have strong opinion on the new name. I think "OPAQUE" is fine, > because it is introduced in IBM Informix and Oracle. > > In Informix, it says [1]: > > > > "An opaque data type is fully encapsulated; the database server does not > know about the internal format of an opaque data type. > > Therefore, the database server cannot make assumptions about how to > access a column having an opaque data type. > > The database developer defines a data structure that holds the > opaque-type information and support functions > > that tell the database server how to access this data structure." > > > > So, I think "opaque" is fine here. > > > > Another option is "RAW" which is introduced by Oracle [2] represents > data that is not to be interpreted by system . > > > > Best, > > Jark > > > > [1]: > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSGU8G_11.70.0/com.ibm.esqlc.doc/ids_esqlc_0357.htm > > [2]: > https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28318/datatype.htm#CNCPT613 > > > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 15:49, 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!" > >> >
