FANNG1 commented on code in PR #10895:
URL: https://github.com/apache/gravitino/pull/10895#discussion_r3262773452
##########
lance/lance-common/src/main/java/org/apache/gravitino/lance/common/ops/gravitino/GravitinoLanceTableOperations.java:
##########
@@ -131,10 +159,61 @@ public DescribeTableResponse describeTable(
Optional.ofNullable(table.properties().get(LANCE_TABLE_VERSION))
.map(Long::valueOf)
.orElse(null));
-
response.setStorageOptions(LancePropertiesUtils.getLanceStorageOptions(table.properties()));
+
+ if (credentialPrivilege != null) {
+ response.setStorageOptions(
+ buildVendedStorageOptions(catalogName, catalog, table,
credentialPrivilege));
+ } else {
+
response.setStorageOptions(LancePropertiesUtils.getLanceStorageOptions(table.properties()));
+ }
+
return response;
}
+ private Map<String, String> buildVendedStorageOptions(
+ String catalogName, Catalog catalog, Table table, CredentialPrivilege
credentialPrivilege) {
Review Comment:
I may not have explained this clearly earlier, which may have caused some
confusion. I’m -1 on fetching credentials through the Gravitino API. That would
effectively tie credential vending to a Gravitino-API-based Lance namespace
backend. If we want to support other Lance namespace backends in the future, or
even a Gravitino-internal namespace backend implementation later (for example,
if authentication/authorization is refactored), this approach would become a
limitation. I’d prefer to keep credential vending backend-agnostic rather than
coupling it to the current Gravitino API path. cc @yuqi1129 @jerryshao ,
expecting your thought.
--
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]
