Hello Devin, The support for the avro scheme in Python function is just added and released in v3.0.0
There is an example of using avro in Python function: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/660525e57ed35b74cb9204521d1fba02cc08c542/pulsar-functions/python-examples/avro_schema_test_function.py And we can submit the test function via the following: ``` bin/pulsar-admin functions create --name test-avro-py --tenant public --namespace default \ --inputs persistent://public/default/test-input \ --output persistent://public/default/test-output \ --py avro_schema_test_function.py \ --className avro_schema_test_function.AvroSchemaTestFunction \ --schema-type avro \ --input-type-class-name avro_schema_test_function.AvroTestObject \ --output-type-class-name avro_schema_test_function.AvroTestObject ``` Sincerely Pengcheng Jiang Devin Bost <devin.b...@gmail.com> 于2023年6月21日周三 08:35写道： > After many of my own attempts, research, digging through source code, and > speaking with folks in various channels in the community, I'm starting to > wonder if *anyone* has *ever* successfully gotten Avro to work with Python > Functions. > > (I don't just mean ingesting a byte array with fastavro but actually using > the built-in schema support that Pulsar Python functions are intended to > support - hence the purpose of combining built-in Avro internals with > multi-language support.) This capability is a core part of the community > offering to support Python, and as we've standardized on Avro internals, > I'm concerned we may have a gap in our ability to support this combination > of technologies, which can impact adoption in organizations that have a > heavy investment in both Python and Java (such as for different teams) when > Avro has already been standardized on. > > I've brought this question up in various places/groups for almost 3 years > now, and I'm starting to wonder if *nobody* has actually done it. > > I've seen examples of using Python producers and consumers with Avro, but > the interaction is different because those interfaces allow the Schema to > be explicitly specified. It's not clear from the source code how (or if) > this can be done currently with the Python Functions API. > > If there's a feature gap here, then we need to decide if it's a priority to > address. This is becoming increasingly important as the Python userbase is > growing significantly, but I'd like to hear thoughts from others, > especially since Lari recently asked if we should be considering wider > changes to the Function API internals. > > Devin G. Bost >
