My 2 cents: Personally, I would like `salesforce.tableau` (and `salesforce.crm`). This makes it easier to have a single rule that Providers are Grouped via Org / Owner at the top level, but further grouped via Product line.
Otherwise, it get's a bit confusing, both from a Dev and User standpoint to know what goes where. Regards, Kaxil On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:34 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > re: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/13595 > > So, Salesforce have bought Tableau and Slack. > > But they are entirely unrelated products -- users of the Slack hooks are > unlikely to want to do anything with the Salesforce CRM suite of tools, so > I think our naming should be along "product" lines/groups, not who owns a > particular service. > > For instance I think we should have three providers: > > slack > tableau > salesforce > > And not one mega salesforce provider, nor should we have > salesforce.salesforce, salesforce.slack, and salesforce.tableau providers. > > This is partly because "salesforce" is both a company/product name (the > CRM), but more generally, I think grouping only makes sense for > sub-products, not around who owns the service because after all, that can > change -- > https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/01/tech/saleforce-buys-slack/index.html > > Thoughts? > > I am strongly +1 for moving tableau back out to it's own provider, and > would prefer we had `tableau`, but would grudgingly prefer > `salesforce.tableau` (and `salesforce.crm`) over having both live in the > `salesforce` provider. > > -ash > > >
