nzw921rx commented on PR #10964: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/pull/10964#issuecomment-4737500243
It seems that our original design intended to have a unified API on the engine side for hash-based routing. In our first version, we abandoned the sink → sink approach because it had compatibility issues with the existing engine and performance concerns. However, looking at the second version's design approach, it directly adds new configuration to the source connector-file — if enabled, it performs document hash-based routing. So if in the future, beyond document synchronization, other use cases want to reuse this hash routing mechanism, this approach appears to be a dead end. Here are my questions: 1. Does this align with the scope/boundaries we defined for the Phase 1 MVP? 1. If the routing strategy needs to be extended to other connectors in the future, how should we handle it? -- 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]
