Sorry about that. I was assuming some kind of name-based schema registry lookup. Assume you are looking up schemas by name using a schema registry. Let’s say the record is name MyRecord. You subsequently add a required field to it. Since the new record is not reverse compatible, you’ll need to name it MyRecord2, or whatever. This is what I meant by “reidentify”.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 12:46 PM roger peppe <rogpe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 15:02, Vance Duncan <dunca...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> My immediate thought is observe the YAGNI principle and only create it if >> and when you need it. Otherwise, you run the risk of requiring >> non-interchangeable re-identification if you need required, non-default, >> fields when the need materializes. >> > > Could you expand a little on that latter point, please? I'm not sure I > understand what you're saying. > A concrete example might help. > > cheers, > rog. > >> >> >> On December 13, 2019, at 9:25 AM, roger peppe <rogpe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> The specification doesn't seem to make it entirely clear whether it's >> allowable for a record to contain no fields (a zero-length array for the >> fields member). I've found at least one implementation that complains about >> a record with an empty fields array, and I'm wondering if this is a bug. >> >> A record containing no fields is actually quite useful as it can act as a >> placeholder for a record with any number of extra fields in future >> evolutions of a schema. >> >> What do you think? >> >> cheers, >> rog. >> > -- Regards, Vance Duncan mailto:dunca...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/VanceDuncan (904) 553-5582
