[jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-7791) Consider re-allowing to refer to UDT outside of their keyspace

["Robert Stupp (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7791?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14120023#comment-14120023 ] 

Robert Stupp commented on CASSANDRA-7791:
-----------------------------------------

Note: with CASSANDRA-7812 committed, dropping a function with bad types gives the following error:
{noformat}
cqlsh:ks1> DROP FUNCTION foo(afeawefawef);
<ErrorMessage code=0000 [Server error] message="java.lang.AssertionError">
{noformat}


> Consider re-allowing to refer to UDT outside of their keyspace
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-7791
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7791
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
>              Labels: cql
>             Fix For: 3.0
>
>
> In CASSANDRA-6643 we decided to make UDT inaccessible outside of their keyspace of definition. Doing so mainly has the advantage that when we drop a keyspace, we don't have to worry its UDT being used in another keyspace. However, this directly conflict with functions (UDF) being global: we can't have functions working on UDT if functions are global and we don't allow UDT access outside their keyspace. Which, I believe, leave us with the following possible options:
> # we make UDT accessible anywhere (though their fully qualified name).
> # we don't support functions on UDT at all.
> # we make functions keyspace-scoped, either always, or only if they apply to UDT.
> # we revert CASSANDRA-6438 and make UDT global.
> In a perfect world I would lean towards 4: the arguments to make UDT keyspace-scoped where not wrong per-se but weak in hindsight given the other options here. It is however basically too late: changing it would be a breaking change so we can't reasonably change this post-2.1.0, and while it's not released yet, it's not a change we can make without substantially delaying the final.
> Option 2 feels rather lame in my book.
> Option 3 feels pretty messy. Having 2 types of UDF, some keyspace-scoped and some that are not would be super confusing. Saying that ll UDF are keyspace-scoped feels limiting, and we would still be somewhat inconsistent with our existing hard-coded functions that are global.
> Which leaves option 1 which might be the most pragmatic. Having to check that UDTs are not used before allowing keyspace drop don't sound like a huge deal to me.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)