The RawSchema was once part of Flink's Kafka connector. I've removed it because its implementation is trivial and I didn't expect that there are many people who need the schema (also, I think I saw people using a map() operator after the consumer to deserialize the byte[] into their formats).
As Stephan mentioned, I'm going to add some tooling so that people can directly use Kafka's Serialization classes, and they provide a "ByteArraySerializer" which is doing exactly the same as the "RawSchema" On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Swapnil Chougule <the.swapni...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Robert, May I know your inputs on same ? > > Thanks, > Swapnil > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > >> /cc Robert, he is looking into extending the Kafka Connectors to support >> more of Kafka's direct utilities >> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Swapnil Chougule < >> the.swapni...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> It will be good to have RawSchema as one of the deserialization schema >>> in streaming framework (like SimpleStringSchema). >>> Many use cases needs data in byte array format after reading from source >>> like kafka. >>> >>> Any inputs for same ? >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Swapnil Chougule < >>> the.swapni...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Maximilian. I implemented same & it worked for me. I was under >>>> impression that RawSchema is available from flink. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Swapnil >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just implement DeserializationSchema and return the byte array from >>>>> Kafka. Byte array serialization poses no problem to the Flink >>>>> serialization. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Swapnil Chougule >>>>> <the.swapni...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> > I am using Kafka consumer in flink 1.1.1 with Kafka 0.8.2. I want to >>>>> read >>>>> > byte array as it is in datastream. I tried to use RawSchema as >>>>> > desrialization schema but couldn't find same 1.1.1. >>>>> > I want to know whether I have to write my custom implementation for >>>>> same ? >>>>> > Can somebody help me to sort out same ? >>>>> > >>>>> > Also passing byte[] to next operator is supported as far as >>>>> serialization is >>>>> > concerned ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
