Hi, I also agree that the current IDs are too long. I think when we decided to have the full namespace in the pipeline element Id (appId) the idea was to avoid naming conflicts once other pipeline elements outside of StreamPipes are used (e.g., company-internal).
What about simplifying the structure a bit, such as namespace:pipelineElementId (e.g., org.apache.streampipes:textfilter)? But then we would have a colon in the directory, which is not much better than a dot I guess ;-) But maybe we could hide this from the user by modifying the SDK and split the id into a namespace and pipeline element Id, e.g.: ProcessingElementBuilder.create(namespace, id), and then the resource folder name would only need to adhere to the id instead of the full namespace+id. What do you think? Dominik On 2020/04/09 18:10:40, Christofer Dutz <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree ... > > And I had issues in the past with these directory names including dots. It's > sort of impossible to see if this is a set of nested directories or just one > (or something in between) in most IDEs I'm using. I would really prefer to > not have "." in directory names. > > Chris > > > > Am 08.04.20, 22:18 schrieb "Philipp Zehnder" <[email protected]>: > > Hi all, > > while testing the processing elements for the release I realized that it > is hard to manage the resources for the pipeline elements, because the name > of the folder is so long. > Especially when there are many elements within one module it is hard to > find the one you are looking for. > > My suggestion would be to shorten the folder names. Currently we have the > whole package name to ensure that the processors are unique. > Maybe when can still use the package name, but start from the Init class > file. This would improve the readability during development. > > What do you think? Are there any reasons why we need the whole package > name? > > Philipp > > > >
