LiebingYu commented on PR #2431: URL: https://github.com/apache/fluss/pull/2431#issuecomment-3804242526
> I think it’s a good idea to use a dedicated prefix for user-extensible properties to avoid potential key conflicts in the future. > > Instead of `customer.*`, consider clearer and more conventional prefixes like `tags.*`, `ext.*`, or `properties.*`, or even begins with `_` prefix such as `_owner=xxx`. These better convey that the keys represent custom, user-defined metadata. The term `customer` is ambiguous and doesn’t clearly signal extensibility. Moreover, from Fluss’s perspective, any property outside the `table.*` namespace is effectively a custom property. > > Examples: > > ``` > tags.owner = 'xxx' > ext.owner = 'xxx' > properties.owner = 'xxx' > _owner = 'xxx' > ``` My question is: do we really need to define a prefix for custom properties? As you said, “from Fluss’s perspective, any property outside the table.* namespace is effectively a custom property.” When the Flink connector processes properties, it can filter out those custom ones and simply skip validating them. From this perspective, custom properties don’t necessarily need a prefix, right? After all, the Fluss server imposes no restrictions on custom properties, but the Flink read/write path introduces an additional constraint (and if users create tables via the API, they can completely bypass this constraint). -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
