collado-mike commented on code in PR #1124: URL: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1124#discussion_r1985837943
########## polaris-core/src/main/java/org/apache/polaris/core/config/BehaviorChangeConfiguration.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + * distributed with this work for additional information + * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + * software distributed under the License is distributed on an + * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + * specific language governing permissions and limitations + * under the License. + */ +package org.apache.polaris.core.config; + +import java.util.Optional; + +/** + * Configurations for non-feature beheavior changes within Polaris. These configurations are not + * intended for use by end users and govern nuanced behavior changes and bugfixes. The + * configurations never expose user-facing catalog-level configurations. These configurations are + * not stable and may be removed at any time. + * + * @param <T> The type of the configuration + */ +public class BehaviorChangeConfiguration<T> extends PolarisConfiguration<T> { Review Comment: > It also allows us to override e.g. catalogConfig which shouldn't be valid for these flags. That seems reasonable, but given that we use a builder, can't we just enforce that at construction? I do like having the different config types housed in different namespaces (as in your examples `BehaviorChangeConfiguration.UNSTABLE_FLAG` vs `FeatureConfiguration.ACTUAL_FEATURE`)... I guess I would just like to ensure that the call sites that are checking for config values don't need to know what type the configuration is at runtime. I can just imagine cases where someone accidentally references one type and the config field is another or someone tries to write some generic code that only works for one config type but not the other... -- 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: issues-unsubscr...@polaris.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
