potiuk commented on issue #27838: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/27838#issuecomment-1323970212
> That said, I appreciate where @eladkal is coming from. I'll poke some folks on the Google side to see if they can engage with #15933. Just be aware tht this is something that at very least take months once seriously started. The experience with separating common.sql provider had shown something that I knew is difficult and I chose common.sql as the case of where separating common code and reusing it across several providers leads to. This i think 4th or 5th issue with common.sql provider that we discovered as result of this experiment - the fact is that making common code into a separate packages leads to exactly this kind of problems - the code is closely coupled (implicitly), yet we want to make sure that the code should evolve, And it is extremely difficult to make sure that we will prevent and handle all such problems. And splitting the Google provider in similar fashion like common sql will lead to many, many, many more problems/couplings like that. There is far more common code in google provider between multiple entitiies, and there will be many more such implicit dependencies that we (or Google) will miss. This is quite a difficult tasks (And now I know it not by intuition but also by seing what happened with common.sql case). If anything, the common.sql experience have reinforced my believe splitting google provider might simply never happen because no-one will be brave enough to take on the task. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
