HonahX commented on PR #1104:
URL: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/1104#issuecomment-2738601364
@snazy Thank you for your feedback on the persistence model for
PolicyMappingRecord. Our goal in designing PolicyMappingRecord was to maintain
consistency by aligning it with the existing data model, particularly the
structure and persistence APIs of GrantRecords, which manage privilege
relationships between securable and grantee entities.
I agree that it's worthwhile to continue discussions about persistence
refactoring and better persistence interface. For example, there have been
discussions initiated around persisting entity relationships, such as
`GrantRecords` and `PolicyMappingRecords`, in a more generic manner. However, I
believe pursuing broader refactoring should not delay the implementation of new
features. Ideally, any refactoring efforts would address both
PolicyMappingRecords and GrantRecords simultaneously to ensure coherence. IMHO,
it makes more sense to develop new features based on the existing model and
perform refactoring later, once we have a well-defined persistence model agreed
upon.
> This means an API that does not depend on the dictated long IDs but
names/name tuples.
Additionally, I'd appreciate if you could provide more details about why the
current PolicyMappingRecord persistence approach would not be compatible with
NoSQL persistence. As a reference, the current `lookupGrantRecords` API already
relies on IDs, could you please elaborate more on this part?
```
PolarisGrantRecord lookupGrantRecord(
@Nonnull PolarisCallContext callCtx,
long securableCatalogId,
long securableId,
long granteeCatalogId,
long granteeId,
int privilegeCode);
```
--
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
