qingwei727 commented on PR #9751:
URL: https://github.com/apache/gravitino/pull/9751#issuecomment-3782100913
> My feeling is that most of the property definitions are too
vendor-specific, like `dlf-xxx`. Also, it emphasizes everywhere in the doc that
"rest" equals "dlf". What happens if there are other Paimon REST
implementations?
>
> I would suggest making the property as generic as possible, so that if
there are other Paimon REST implementations, such properties can also be
leveraged.
Thanks for the review! You raise a valid concern about property naming and
extensibility.
About he current implementation, I'd like to clarify:
### Current Design Rationale:
1. **Generic property**: `token-provider`
- Already generic and can support multiple providers (e.g., `bearer`,
`dlf`)
- Not DLF-specific
2. **DLF-specific properties**: `dlf-access-key-id`,
`dlf-access-key-secret`, etc.
- These are intentionally DLF-specific because they map directly to
Paimon's DLF implementation
- Paimon itself uses `dlf.access-key-id` format (see [Paimon DLF
docs](https://paimon.apache.org/docs/master/concepts/rest/overview/))
--
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]
