This also means we need to rename slack to salesforce.slack
On Mon, 11 Jan, 2021 at 11:44, Kaxil Naik <[email protected]> wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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
