🙇 On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:38 AM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not hearing any objection to making it public as a @DeveloperApi ? > anyone object to a PR on that? > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 8:46 AM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm also interested: are there problems with opening up this API beyond >> needing to freeze it and keep it stable? it's pretty stable. >> As @DeveloperApi at least? >> Are there implications for storing UDTs in particular engines or formats? >> Just making it public for developers, even with a 'use at your own risk' >> warning, seems pretty small as a change? >> >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 5:10 PM Fitch, Simeon <fi...@astraea.io> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> First time posting here, so apologies if I need to be directing this >>> topic elsewhere. >>> >>> I'm the author of RasterFrames, and a contributor to GeoMesa's Spark SQL >>> module. Both make use of decently low level Catalyst constructs, include >>> custom UDTs; RasterFrames introduces a geospatial raster type, and GeoMesa >>> a geometry type. >>> >>> In order to make this work we've circumvented the [`package private`]( >>> https://bit.ly/3pr0fVv) restriction on `UDTRegistration` by inserting >>> sibling classes into the package namespace. It's a hack, and works fine >>> with JVM 8, but violates the [much more restrictive]( >>> https://bit.ly/3aadO5g) module constructs in JVM 9+. >>> >>> We've been monitoring [SPARK-7768]( >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SPARK-7768) (filed in 2015) and >>> it's [associated PR](https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/16478) for >>> years now, but it keeps getting kicked down the road(map). >>> >>> As authors of open source systems we completely understand how and why >>> this happens, but we are at a critical juncture in our projects' lifecycle, >>> anchored to JVM 8 while other systems have moved on to later versions. We'd >>> also like to enjoy the benefits of later JVMs. >>> >>> So... I'm here to find out how I and others critically needing public >>> access to `UDTRegistration` might better advocate for it? >>> >>> I think (but not 100% sure) the PR linked above is more extensive than >>> what we need, also addressing usability around Encoders, for which we have >>> our own type class solution. My assumption to date has been all we need is >>> line 32 of `UDTRegistration` deleted (if there's folly therein, please say >>> so!). While I understand a reluctance to promote `UDTRegistration` to >>> `public`, I note that it has not been changed since 2016, perhaps a good >>> indicator that the API is stable enough. Marking it as `@Experimental` >>> could be a compromise option. >>> >>> Thanks for reading this far and giving this consideration. Any and all >>> advice is appreciated. >>> >>> Simeon (@metasim) >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Simeon Fitch >>> Co-founder & VP of R&D >>> Astraea, Inc. >>> >>> -- Simeon Fitch Co-founder & VP of R&D Astraea, Inc.
