Another way to resolve this could be to define a convention such that a "cross transfer" operator should belong to either the source or destination cloud provider's package.
Personally though I do not see any technical issues with having a "cross_transfer" package, but I don't find the name to roll off the tongue very well. ;-) On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 3:53 PM Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> wrote: > I have a question: Should we put all transfer operators between into > separate "cross_transfer" package ? > > *Context:* > > We had one unresolved point when we decided about AIP-21 - where to put > transfer operators between service providers. In the middle of implementing > it, it turned out that we need to make some decisions as it has some > undesirable side effects if we just move the transfer operators to core > without any structure. Detailed discussion in this PR: > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6147 > > We can solve it easily by choosing "cross_transfer" package for all > transfer operators that are crossing "service provider" boundary. > > This way we will have "gcp" (or maybe even "alphabet" soon), "aws", "azure" > etc. and "cross_transfer" for all the S3->GCP, AWS->S3 etc. > > What do you think? Anyone strongly against this? Or maybe we can follow > lazy consensus rule for this? Or maybe someone can come up with a better > name :) ? > > J. > > -- > > Jarek Potiuk > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >
