[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-1629?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14187132#comment-14187132
]
Abraham Elmahrek commented on SQOOP-1629:
-----------------------------------------
I'm sorry I didn't realize this before, but I do have a concern about this. As
a connector developer, I'm going to generally write my configs. By doing so,
I'll be aware of configs that I've written, but not the ones that any one else
has written. The proposed constraint, name + type, is much broader than the
scope the connector developer will be aware of. The connector developer will be
aware of their connector, not any others. Here's a quick example of two
connectors with the same config classes that I'd like to be able to write:
{noformat}
// Connector A
@ConfigurationClass
public class FromJobConfiguration {
@Config public FromJobConfig fromJobConfig;
public FromJobConfiguration() {
fromJobConfig = new FromJobConfig();
}
}
{noformat}
{noformat}
// Connector B
@ConfigurationClass
public class FromJobConfiguration {
@Config public FromJobConfig fromJobConfig;
public FromJobConfiguration() {
fromJobConfig = new FromJobConfig();
}
}
{noformat}
By making the config class name unique per type, Connector B will conflict with
Connector A.
> Sqoop2: Add unique constraint on the Config table for name and type
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SQOOP-1629
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-1629
> Project: Sqoop
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Veena Basavaraj
> Assignee: Veena Basavaraj
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: SQOOP-1629.patch, SQOOP-1629.patch, SQOOP-1629.patch
>
>
> this helps create top level config objects and use their names while creating
> the LINK and JOB entities
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
