Hi Jing, IMO, The whole project should keep consistency. Either "com.uber.hoodie" or "org.apache.hudi" both of them are good. We just follow the same naming style at the point when introducing a new module.
What do you think? Best, Vino Jing Chen <[email protected]> 于2019年7月31日周三 下午4:04写道： > One question one this propose, if i want to introduce a new module, shall I > put it under package *com.uber.hoodie*? Or simply org.apache.hudi? > > Thanks > Jing > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:44 AM Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Could not agree more. Its captured under the work for the first release > > already https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HUDI-121?filter=-1 > > > > Balaji is the RM. Plan to do this in August. > > > > One issue we realized was that we need a solid migration path, since the > > tables are all registered with com.uber.hoodie.HoodieInputFormat as the > > input format. > > We plan to do a HIP around this, once we get past the jar/bundle > redoing.. > > (thats another logical step we are considering before doing this, to test > > with older setups more easily) > > > > Hope that helps > > /thanks/vinoth > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 11:20 PM vino yang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > I find hudi still uses the package pattern like "com/uber/hoodie". > > > > > > Since it has joined the ASF incubator, should it follow the Apache > > package > > > naming rules? For example: org/apache/hoodie(hudi)? > > > > > > Is there any plan about renaming? > > > > > > Best, > > > Vino > > > > > >
