+1?? Currently we have encountered such scenarios and look forward to
supporting
------------------ ???????? ------------------
??????:
"dev"
<[email protected]>;
????????: 2021??1??19??(??????) ????4:25
??????: "dev"<[email protected]>;
????: Re: [DISCUSS] Support multiple ordering fields
> Wondering if we should just take a bunch of payload configs and deprecate
these flags
I have the same feeling, there are already so many config options in
Hoodie, the maintain work for developers or users is hard.
Vinoth Chandar <[email protected]> ??2021??1??18?????? ????11:40??????
> +1 as well.
>
> Slightly orthogonal point.
>
> Wondering if we should just take a bunch of payload configs and deprecate
> these flags?
> What I mean is : --source-ordering-field ultimately is used by the
> HoodieAvroPayload class (or its family).
> Our utilities expose these as flags for convenience, but its just more work
> to maintain.
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 7:09 AM vino yang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > +1,
> >
> > We have found that such flexibility is needed in some scenarios.
> >
> > Best,
> > Vino
> >
> > Raymond Xu <[email protected]> ??2021??1??17??????
????3:38??????
> >
> > > Just want to discuss a small improvement for setting ordering
fields.
> > > For
> > > - property `hoodie.payload.ordering.field` and
> > > - deltastreamer --source-ordering-field
> > > I think it can be useful to support multiple fields (configured
via a
> > > comma-separated list) to determine the order in some cases. This
would
> > need
> > > another config to set the Comparable implementation, say
> > > hoodie.payload.ordering.comparable.class to allow custom logic
for
> doing
> > > comparison.
> > >
> > > Any suggestions? Thanks.
> > >
> >
>
