jason810496 commented on PR #54494: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/54494#issuecomment-3201105203
> Or is it decided ad hoc based on the queue type, as long as we make sure it doesn’t collide with existing ones? Yes, as long as the `scheme` identifier is different from existing one, the naming should be fine. > If not, inspired by the redis+pubsub scheme, would it make sense to adopt a consistent pattern like <provider>+<queue>? For this PR, that would mean using google+pubsub as the scheme. Sure, I named the Redis one as `redis+pubsub` because there are multiple ways to leverage Redis as a message queue (using List, Stream, and the Redis PubSub as in the current Redis provider implementation). Therefore, it's better to maintain flexibility by using `+pubsub` as a suffix in Redis case. There might also be other services in GCP that provide message queue-like functionality, so naming it `google+pubsub` works well for me. Thanks! -- 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]
