Hi hoppers,
I personally very much agree with Bart's proposal on making this
behavior configurable so that it can be used and implemented the way we
prefer.
I also agree that this could add additional complexity but this will not
be a big problem if everything will be well designed and also (the
major plus) it adds the missing flexibility to accomplish everyone's
needs on this topic.
So +1 in my opinion on having it configurabable.
Cheers
Sergio
Il 02/11/2021 17:52, Bart Maertens ha scritto:
Hi All,
Even though I agree with the concept of having environments as independent
and standalone objects, my personal experience is that environments are
linked to projects in almost all cases.
We'll probably have a couple of opinions here, so why not make this
configurable?
We could have a default global option that either sets environments as
standalone or linked to the project they were created in.
On an individual environment level, we could add another option to overrule
the global default for a specific environment.
For example, if a user's default is to link environments to projects, this
option would show a checkbox that is checked (default). The default can be
overruled (uncheck the checkbox) to make this environment available
independent of projects.
This would add some additional complexity and verbosity to hop-config.json,
but you're not supposed to modify that file by hand if you don't know
what you're doing anyway.
Regards,
Bart
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:37 PM Ricardo Gouvea <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Hans,
My experience suggests that projects be disconnected from projects, I agree
with your justification.
Cheers,
Em ter., 2 de nov. de 2021 às 05:19, Hans Van Akelyen <
[email protected]> escreveu:
Hi Hop enthusiasts, developers and philosophers
I have had an interesting discussion with Sergio on Jira ticket HOP-3471
[1] but we would like to get a bit of a broader consensus.
So the main question is: do we see an environment as something linked to
a
single project or are they objects that can be reused for several
projects?
Both approaches have pro's and con's but we need to agree on this as it
would change user experience and maybe how they are stored.
Currently an environment is a semi-standalone object, it is not linked
to a
project in the hop-project.json but it is linked to a project in the
hop-config.json. In the GUI all environments are shown, not only the
environments linked to a project. When using hop-run I *think* you can
point to an environment that is not linked to the project in the
hop-config.json.
My personal preference would be to unlink them completely and have
environments that could be used by multiple projects. This gives greater
flexibility when you would want to divide your projects on a lower level.
con would be that you would always see all available environments defined
in your hop-config.json.
I would love for some opinions on the matter so it can be set in stone
once
and for all. And we can update our docs to reflect this decision [2][3].
Cheers,
Hans
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HOP-3471
[2]
https://hop.apache.org/manual/latest/projects/projects-environments.html#top
[3]
https://hop.apache.org/manual/latest/projects/index.html#_environments
--
<https://www.openin.com.br>
Patrocinadora Oficial do
Pentaho Day 2019
Ricardo Gouvêa
CEO
[email protected]
Mobile: +55 11 9 9638-9238
Openin - Your Partner in Data
www.openin.com.br
[image: Openin no Linkedin] [image: Openin no Facebook]
<https://www.facebook.com/Openinbr/> [image: Openin no Instagram]
<https://www.instagram.com/openinbr/> [image: Openin no Twitter]
<https://twitter.com/OpeninBigData> [image: Openin no Youtube]
<https://www.youtube.com/openinbigdata>
