Thanks for starting this discussion, Yufei! I think it is important to clarify this sooner rather than later.
>From my POV option 2 (String) is cumbersome. The biggest reasons being more complex CDI injection (as already noted by other people) but also more complicated usage searches in IDEs. As for option 1, I support the renaming to "realm" in CLI options and other user-settable parameters (such as config options). My thinking is that from the user's perspective, the intent is clear that the user wants to select a particular realm by its ID (or name). As for java class changes, RealmId makes more sense to me because it indicates that the object holds the ID and not the whole realm (as I commented on the PR). If, for example, we're going to manage Realms as first-class entities in Polaris, there will be a need to represent administrative realm data in memory. Then, there will have to make a distinction between Real ID extracted from request parameters and Realm object holding persisted data. That said, I do not feel too strongly about renaming RealmId to Realm if other people agree on that. Cheers, Dmitri. On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 8:51 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Folks > > I wanted to share my thoughts on the ongoing discussion in PR #741 > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/741>. about whether to use Realm > or > RealmId. > > The more I consider it, the more it seems that the name Realm is the more > natural choice. It is more an atomic concept, much like the concept of a > region in AWS. > > If we take a closer look at the current usage across Polaris—in > documentation, error messages, and configurations—realm and realmId are > already used interchangeably. In fact, in most cases, we simply use realm > rather than realmId. > > Here are a few examples in the Polaris repo: > > Error Messages: > > > - realm: <realm> root principal credentials: > <client-id>:<client-secret> > > Configurations: > > - Polaris.realm-context.realms > - jdbc:h2:file:./build/test_data/polaris/{realm}/db > > Documentation: > <https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/metastores/> > > <https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/metastores/> > - <https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/metastores/>Metastores > <https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/metastores/> > - Configuring Polaris for Production > < > https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/configuring-polaris-for-production/ > > > - Admin Tool <https://polaris.apache.org/in-dev/unreleased/admin-tool/> > > Proposal > > Based on this consistency and the conceptual clarity it brings, I proposed > two options: > > Option 1, using the name realm instead of realmId throughout Polaris and > still keeping the interface (public interface Realm) for dependency > injection purposes. The interface can be extensible in case we want to add > any subconcept to the realm, which may never happen to be honest. > > Option 2, purely using a string for realm instead of an interface, this is > simpler ultimately, but not extensible and needs more effort to refactor > the current code. > > > Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this. > > > Yufei >
