Reuven - How is the work on constructor support for ByteBuddy codegen going? Does it still look like that's going to be a feasible way forward for generating schemas/coders for AutoValue classes?On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 4:37 PM Reuven Lax <relax@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I would hope so if possible.On Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 4:36 AM Kenneth Knowles <kenn@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:Just some low-level detail: If there is no @DefaultSchema annotation but it is an @AutoValue class, can schema inference go ahead with the AutoValueSchema? Then the user doesn't have to do anything.KennOn Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 6:14 AM Reuven Lax <relax@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:We already have a framework for ByteBuddy codegen for JavaBean Row interfaces, which should hopefully be easy to extend AutoValue (and more efficient than using reflection). I'm working on adding constructor support to this right now.On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:29 AM Jeff Klukas <jklukas@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Sounds, then, like we need to a define a new `AutoValueSchema extends SchemaProvider` and users would opt-in to this via the DefaultSchema annotation:@DefaultSchema(AutoValueSchema.class)@AutoValuepublic abstract MyClass ...Since we already have the JavaBean and JavaField reflection-based schema providers to use as a guide, it sounds like it may be best to try to implement this using reflection rather than implementing an AutoValue extension.A reflection-based approach here would hinge on being able to discover the package-private constructor for the concrete class and read its types. Those types would define the schema, and the fromRow impementation would call the discovered constructor.On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:02 AM Reuven Lax <relax@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:38 PM Jeff Klukas <jklukas@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Reuven - A SchemaProvider makes sense. It's not clear to me, though, whether that's more limited than a Coder. Do all values of the schema have to be simple types, or does Beam SQL support nested schemas?Nested schemas, collection types (lists and maps), and collections of nested types are all supported.Put another way, would a user be able to create an AutoValue class comprised of simple types and then use that as a field inside another AutoValue class? I can see how that's possible with Coders, but not clear whether that's possible with Row schemas.Yes, this is explicitly supported.On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 8:22 PM Reuven Lax <relax@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Jeff,I would suggest a slightly different approach. Instead of generating a coder, writing a SchemaProvider that generates a schema for AutoValue. Once a PCollection has a schema, a coder is not needed (as Beam knows how to encode any type with a schema), and it will work seamlessly with Beam SQL (in fact you don't need to write a transform to turn it into a Row if a schema is registered).We already do this for POJOs and basic JavaBeans. I'm happy to help do this for AutoValue.ReuvenOn Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 5:50 AM Jeff Klukas <jklukas@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi all - I'm looking for some review and commentary on a proposed design for providing built-in Coders for AutoValue classes. There's existing discussion in BEAM-1891  about using AvroCoder, but that's blocked on incompatibility between AutoValue and Avro's reflection machinery that don't look resolvable.I wrote up a design document  that instead proposes using AutoValue's extension API to automatically generate a Coder for each AutoValue class that users generate. A similar technique could be used to generate conversions to and from Row for use with BeamSql.I'd appreciate review of the design and thoughts on whether this seems feasible to support within the Beam codebase. I may be missing a simpler approach.