[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-1901?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Abraham Elmahrek updated SQOOP-1901:
------------------------------------
Summary: Sqoop2: Support DRY code in IDF impementations and add JSONIDF
(was: Supporting DRY code in IDF impementations and add JSONIDF)
> Sqoop2: Support DRY code in IDF impementations and add JSONIDF
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SQOOP-1901
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SQOOP-1901
> Project: Sqoop
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: sqoop2-framework
> Reporter: Veena Basavaraj
> Assignee: Veena Basavaraj
> Fix For: 1.99.5
>
> Attachments: SQOOP-1901-v2.patch, SQOOP-1901-v4.patch,
> SQOOP-1901-v5.patch, SQOOP-1901-v6.patch
>
>
> As the title suggests, we want to encourage DRY code in the new IDF
> implementations.
> As the IDF api mandates CSV and object format for all its sub implementation,
> I propose we move the common functionality to the base IDF class so that JSON
> IDF or AvroIDF does not have to repeat this code.
> The only parts of the code that needs to be in subclasses is how then handle
> the conversion between the "T" ( generic parameter) and the csv/ object
> representations.
> I saw that http://ingest.tips/2014/12/11/sqoop-1-99-4-release/ mentions
> extensind from CSVIDF and this cannot technically work since we have the
> generic T that will be different for AvroIDF or JSON IDF
> Update:
> Also extending from CSVIDF seems a bit ilogical, since the IDF API says that
> it needs CSV and object Array, these functionality of converting between the
> two i.e text to object and object to text should be in base class.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
