Hi everyone,
if there are no objections, I would start a voting thread by tomorrow.
Thanks,
Timo
On 29.04.25 11:46, Timo Walther wrote:
Hi Hao,
thanks for your feedback. Currently, the Python API does not support
structured types at all. So this might require another FLIP in the
future with
Hi Hao,
thanks for your feedback. Currently, the Python API does not support
structured types at all. So this might require another FLIP in the
future with a dedicated effort. However, I have considered Python
already in the design. Also Python classes are discoverable from a fully
qualified
Hi Timo,
Thanks for the clarification. It's very helpful.
For the classpath, I suppose it can also support Python later if it's
called in Python table api? Do we want to indicate if it's Java classpath
or Python class? Or we support a list of classpath which can consist both
Python, Java or other
Hi Timo,
thank you very much for responding. I see that this is just the first step
to get consistency between SQL and Table API and more work is to come.
I still think that there is some redundancy between STRUCT and ROW but tbh
I have more issues with ROW than with STRUCT. (What is even the mea
Hi Arvid, Hi Hao,
thanks for this valuable feedback. Let me clarify a few things before I
go into the details.
Just to avoid any confusion: the FLIP does not propose introducing the
StructuredType. Structured types backed by classes already exist in
Flink for years and are already supported
I think Arvid has a good point. Why not define Object type without class
and when you get it in table api, try to cast it to some class? I found
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/jdbc/getstart/mapping.html.
Under `JAVA_OBJECT` type section. They have:
```
ResultSet rs = stmt.execute
Hi Timo,
thanks for addressing my points. I'm not set on using STRUCT et al. but
wanted to point out the alternatives.
Regarding the attached class name, I have similar confusion to Hao. I
wonder if Structures types shouldn't be anonymous by default in the sense
that initially we don't attach a c
Hi Hao,
1. Can `StructuredType` be nested?
Yes this is supported.
2. What's the main reason the class won't be enforced in SQL?
SQL should not care about classes. Within the SQL ecosystem, the SQL
engine controls the data serialization and protocols. The SQL engine
will not load the class. C
Hi Timo,
Thanks for the FLIP. +1 with a few questions:
1. Can `StructuredType` be nested? e.g. `STRUCTURED<'com.example.User',
name STRING, age INT NOT NULL, address STRUCTURED<'com.example.address',
street STRING, zip STRING>>`
2. What's the main reason the class won't be enforced in SQL? Since
Hi Arvid, Hi Sergey,
thanks for your feedback. I updated the FLIP accordingly but let me
answer your questions
here as well:
> Are we going to enforce that the name is a valid class name? What is
> happening if it's not a correct name?
> What are the implications of using a class that is not i
It seems the original DISCUSS thread was split into two. I will answer
in the original thread for improving the history.
Cheers,
Timo
On 22.04.25 15:23, Arvid Heise wrote:
Hi Timo,
+1 for the proposal. A couple of remarks:
- Are we going to enforce that the name is a valid class name? What is
Hi Timo,
+1 for the proposal. A couple of remarks:
- Are we going to enforce that the name is a valid class name? What is
happening if it's not a correct name?
- What are the implications of using a class that is not in the classpath
in Table API? It looks to me that the name is metadata-only unti
Thanks for the small but important changes proposed. IMO, these are essential
for dealing with these directly in SQL.
On 2025/04/10 05:54:58 Timo Walther wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to start a discussion about FLIP-520: Simplify
> StructuredType handling [1].
>
> Flink SQL already
Thanks for driving this Timo
The FLIP seems reasonable to me
I have one minor question/clarification
do I understand it correct that after this FLIP we can execute of
`typeof` against result of `OBJECT_OF`
for instance
SELECT typeof(OBJECT_OF(
'com.example.User',
'name', 'Bob',
'age', 42
)
Hi everyone,
I would like to ask again for feedback on this FLIP. It is a rather
small change but with big impact on usability for structured data.
Are there any objections? Otherwise I would like to continue with voting
soon.
Thanks,
Timo
On 10.04.25 07:54, Timo Walther wrote:
Hi everyon
15 matches
Mail list logo
