Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SerializeCql is a confusing name for a macro #905

Closed
Lorak-mmk opened this issue Jan 4, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1000
Closed

SerializeCql is a confusing name for a macro #905

Lorak-mmk opened this issue Jan 4, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #1000
Assignees
Labels
API-breaking This might introduce incompatible API changes
Milestone

Comments

@Lorak-mmk
Copy link
Collaborator

As evidenced by #896 , SerializeCql is a confusing name for a macro that allows serializing UDT. It should be called SerializeUDT.

@piodul
Copy link
Collaborator

piodul commented Jan 4, 2024

It is very common for derive macros to have exactly the same name as the trait they implement. To me at least, it's confusing when you write #[derive(SerializeUdt)] while there is no corresponding SerializeUdt trait.

Perhaps we could change both the trait and macro name to SerializeValue instead - that way it will be clear that it's about serializing values and not rows.

@wprzytula
Copy link
Collaborator

With @Lorak-mmk, we prefer the name change of both the trait and the derive macro to SerializeValue. We need to remember to rename the upcoming DeserializeCql to DeserializeValue as well.

@wprzytula wprzytula self-assigned this Apr 9, 2024
@wprzytula wprzytula added the API-breaking This might introduce incompatible API changes label Apr 9, 2024
@wprzytula wprzytula assigned muzarski and unassigned wprzytula May 7, 2024
@wprzytula wprzytula added this to the 0.14.0 milestone May 7, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
API-breaking This might introduce incompatible API changes
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants