OSDir


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements to the Unified SQL Connector API


In the case of normal Flink job, I agree we can infer the table type from
the queries. However, for SQL client, the query is adhoc and not known
beforehand. In such case, we might want to enforce the table open mode at
startup time, so users won't accidentally write to a Kafka topic that is
supposed to be written only by some producer. What do you guys think?

Shuyi

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 7:31 AM Hequn Cheng <chenghequn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks a lot for the proposal. I like the idea to unify table definitions.
> I think we can drop the table type since the type can be derived from the
> sql, i.e, a table be inserted can only be a sink table.
>
> I left some minor suggestions in the document, mainly include:
> - Maybe we also need to allow define properties for tables.
> - Support specify Computed Columns in a table
> - Support define keys for sources.
>
> Best, Hequn
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 4:09 PM Shuyi Chen <suez1224@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Thanks a lot for the proposal, Timo. I left a few comments. Also, it
> seems
> > the example in the doc does not have the table type (source, sink and
> both)
> > property anymore. Are you suggesting drop it? I think the table type
> > properties is still useful as it can restrict a certain connector to be
> > only source/sink, for example, we usually want a Kafka topic to be either
> > read-only or write-only, but not both.
> >
> > Shuyi
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:53 AM Timo Walther <twalthr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > as some of you might have noticed, in the last two releases we aimed to
> > > unify SQL connectors and make them more modular. The first connectors
> > > and formats have been implemented and are usable via the SQL Client and
> > > Java/Scala/SQL APIs.
> > >
> > > However, after writing more connectors/example programs and talking to
> > > users, there are still a couple of improvements that should be applied
> > > to unified SQL connector API.
> > >
> > > I wrote a design document [1] that discusses limitations that I have
> > > observed and consideres feedback that I have collected over the last
> > > months. I don't know whether we will implement all of these
> > > improvements, but it would be great to get feedback for a satisfactory
> > > API and for future priorization.
> > >
> > > The general goal should be to connect to external systems as convenient
> > > and type-safe as possible. Any feedback is highly appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Timo
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yaxp1UJUFW-peGLt8EIidwKIZEWrrA-pznWLuvaH39Y/edit?usp=sharing
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > "So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future."
> >
>


-- 
"So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future."