Talked with Ash and yes I think it make sense as a separate provider. A good example is Google -- It is under Alphabet Inc but Google itself is a separate entity and different from its other services like Google Fiber.
I am happy for them to be separate providers On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 2:36 PM Peter DeJoy <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for separate providers. Extending the Salesforce example, it wouldn’t > make sense to me to turn the Segment provider > <https://github.com/apache/airflow/tree/master/airflow/providers/segment> into > a module of a Twilio provider, as Segment still exists as its standalone > product- it is unlikely that a user would get utility from having both > Segment and Twilio modules included in the same package, as they’re rarely > building DAGs that would integrate across the two tools (same goes for > salesforce/slack/tableau). Also agree that folks shouldn’t need to know or > worry about who owns which tool to figure out where providers live. > > Pete > On Jan 11, 2021, 8:13 AM -0500, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]>, wrote: > > If we go for separate "slack" "salesforce" "tableau" - (which I am also OK > with - i have no strong opinion), then we just need to create a separate > provider for Tablea'u and de-deprecate the "tableau' extra (plus likely > deprecate Hooks/OPerators from Salesforce (which I see that we actually > have). > > I am ok with either solution. > > J. > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 1:46 PM Tomasz Urbaszek <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I'm in favor of separate packages for tableau and slack. Until now I >> didn't know they are owned by salesforce and I would not even dare to look >> for them in salesforce provider. >> >> In my opinion we should prefer user experience over "business >> correctness". While amazon and google are big and most of their products >> have Amazon/Google in name, having one provider for all of them makes sense >> (especially that some libraries are shared). >> >> As per alphabet - we already discussed it ( >> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6169#issuecomment-534179100) and >> it seems that sticking to google is more feasible. >> >> Tomek >> >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 1:11 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 11 Jan, 2021 at 14:04, Elad Kalif <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> At least for me, most of my ETLs don't use all 3 providers in a single >>> DAG. >>> >>> I'm not sure if most tableau users are aware of it being owned by >>> salesforce, for the end user of tableau it doesn't really mean anything. >>> >>> >>> My thoughts exactly. >>> >>> On Mon, 11 Jan, 2021 at 14:04, Elad Kalif <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> if we are going with the salesforce.crm, salesforce.tableau, >>> salesforce.slack - does it mean that anytime a provider is being bought by >>> another we will need to modify the provider structure? >>> >>> >>> Yes. And this is exactly why I **dont** want salesforce.crm, but just >>> salesforce, tableau and slack. >>> >>> For instance, look at https://www.tableau.com/ -- it's still a separate >>> entity with it's own marketing identity, with almost no reference to >>> Salesforce. >>> >>> I especially hate the "discoverability" of salesforce.slack as a name >>> -- it doesn't make sense to me. >>> >>> >>> > > -- > +48 660 796 129 > >
