Hello Dmitri, Thanks for your prompt reply.
I understand your point about the added complexity in JSON serialization and agree that, from a user perspective, it is not a major hindrance to productivity. I am comfortable with either outcome and will be happy to follow the direction the community decides to take on this issue. Best regards, Innocent On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 10:20 AM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Innocent, > > I appreciate your involvement in this project and your contribution towards > [996]! > > You PR [3349] looks correct and concise. > > However, it does introduce extra complexity into the serialization of > Polaris data over JSON. Given that the case insensitivity consents in [996] > are about technical type IDs, I personally do not think adding complexity > in JSON (de-)serialization in this case is worth the feature. > > Assuming existing error messages on type name mismatches are clear, I think > it should be fairly straight-forward for clients / users to use upper case > type IDs. > > If other people think that having case insensitive type IDs is still worth > the extra code complexity, PR [3349] looks good to me from the technical > perspective. > > [996] https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/996 > > [3349] https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3349 > > Cheers, > Dmitri. > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2026 at 12:50 AM Innocent Djiofack <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hello, > > My name is Innocent. I am a new apache Polaris user who is strongly > > interested in contributing to the code base. I have been looking at #996 > > <https://github.com/apache/polaris/issues/996> and given the back and > > forth > > on the issue as well as the guidance from Dmitry, I thought it would be a > > good idea to start this thread to align on what should be done. > > > > As a quick refresher, the issue is that storage type is not case > sensitive. > > Attempting to create catalogs with storage type different `file` instead > of > > `FILE` or `s3` instead of `S3` will fail. Other operations requiring the > > storage type will also fail. On the user side, once the issue is > detected > > it is generally quite easy to fix. However, user experience will be much > > improved if users don't have to worry about such details, so I think > making > > storage type case insensitive would be an improvement. > > > > Before I get into how we would want to do it, I would like to gather > > opinions on the matter before I invest more time into looking at how the > > change would look like. > > > > Thank you for having me in the community! > > >
