https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METAMODEL-4
2013/8/10 Henry Saputra <[email protected]>: > What is the JIRA for this one? > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Manuel van den Berg < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> (shouldn't I just vote on the Jira for this?) >> >> manuel >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Kasper Sørensen [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 9:03 >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] use folder name as schema name for file based >> > DataContexts >> > >> > Allow me to bump this issue (it's my impression that more people have >> joined >> > in a bit late, after this topic was posted). >> > >> > I think this is one of the more important issues that I would want to fix >> > before we make our first release at Apache. >> > >> > 2013/7/24 Kasper Sørensen <[email protected]>: >> > > Right now we have this slightly odd naming convention for schema and >> > > table names when building metadata for e.g. a CSV file or a fixed >> > > width value file. >> > > >> > > Schema name: The filename, including file extension. >> > > Table name: The filename without extension. >> > > Resulting in e.g. a column path like this: people.csv.people.name >> > > >> > > I suggest we change it to this convention: >> > > >> > > Schema name: Folder name >> > > Table name: The filename, including file extension. >> > > Resulting in e.g. a column path like this: documents.people.csv.name >> > > >> > > Why do I think this would be an improvement? >> > > >> > > 1) Because this would first of all make a kind of sense to the user to >> > > see the file system's hierarchy reflected in the schema model. >> > > 2) Because it allows us to make these DataContext's operate not on a >> > > single file, but on a directory of files. I have seen this quite a >> > > number of times by now that users of MetaModel, or users of e.g. >> > > DataCleaner, which uses MetaModel quite heavily, wants to do this sort >> of >> > stuff. >> > > 3) The removing of the file extension stuff is kind of broken and a >> > > strange convention in the first place. >> > > >> > > While this doesn't really break backwards compatibility in terms of >> > > Java code, it would break configuration files and other stuff of >> > > applications that use MetaModel. But I do believe that can be >> > > communicated and handled through carefully explaining the new >> > > convention on the migration page (that I recently started writing [1]). >> > > >> > > What do you think? >> > > >> > > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/metamodel/MigratingFromEobjectsMetaModel >>
