sundapeng commented on PR #7722: URL: https://github.com/apache/paimon/pull/7722#issuecomment-4334871523
One question I am not sure: should the method name be `hadoopOptions()` or just `options()` ? If we use `hadoopOptions()`, the meaning is clear, it returns the `fs.*` style config, and it is also same as the existing no-arg `hadoopOptions()` in `HadoopFileIO` / `OSSFileIO`. But the interface name is already `HadoopOptionsProvider`, so `provider.hadoopOptions(...)` looks a little duplicate. If we use `options()`, it is shorter, and `PluginFileIO` already has an `options()`. But only see the method name, user may not know what kind of options it is. I prefer `hadoopOptions()` a little, because the method name itself can tell the meaning. But I do not have strong opinion. WDYT? -- 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]
