Does anyone has experience with this, or any workaround? Or how can this be
solved in Atlas?
Best,
*Verdan Mahmood*
(+31) 655 576 560
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:35 AM Verdan Mahmood
wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> As it is really common to delete and re-create hive tables, this removes
> the entity in
Date: 24/07/2017 23:57
Subject: Re: Relationship attributes
Sent by:Madhan Neethiraj
David,
I would suggest going with the following:
class AtlasEntity {
// ...
Map attributes;
// ...
Map relationships; // Object type can be either
AtlasRelatedObjectId or Collectio
: 24/07/2017 16:16
Subject: Re: Relationship attributes
Sent by:Madhan Neethiraj
As I said earlier, I prefer “relatedEntities” – as this name states that
the values in this attributes are references to entities. I think
“relationships” is good as we
24/07/2017 16:16
Subject: Re: Relationship attributes
Sent by:Madhan Neethiraj
As I said earlier, I prefer “relatedEntities” – as this name states that
the values in this attributes are references to entities. I think
“relationships” is good as well. However, I would pre
Cc: Madhan Neethiraj , Sarath Subramanian
, Graham Wallis
Subject: Re: Relationship attributes
Hi all,
I have just had a chat with Graham. we are thinking that we should go with
relationships as the top level name. We also think we could helpfully add in
the related entity in the new class
thiraj
To: "dev@atlas.apache.org" , Sarath Subramanian
Date: 24/07/2017 09:04
Subject: Re: Relationship attributes
Sent by:Madhan Neethiraj
Current name of ‘relationshipAttributes’ makes sense looking from an
entity point-of-view – it distinguishes regular-att
Analytics CTO Office - jon...@uk.ibm.com
From: Graham Wallis
To: dev@atlas.apache.org
Cc: Madhan Neethiraj , Sarath Subramanian
Date: 24/07/2017 09:58
Subject: Re: Relationship attributes
Personally I think 'relatedEntities' is clearer.
Best regards,
Graha
thiraj
To: "dev@atlas.apache.org" , Sarath Subramanian
Date: 24/07/2017 09:04
Subject: Re: Relationship attributes
Sent by:Madhan Neethiraj
Current name of ‘relationshipAttributes’ makes sense looking from an
entity point-of-view – it distinguishes regular-att
tionships as it is simpler - is there a reason you need
attribute in the name?
all the best, David.
From: Sarath Subramanian
To: dev@atlas.apache.org
Cc: Madhan Neethiraj
Date: 24/07/2017 07:09
Subject:Re: Relation
24/07/2017 07:09
Subject: Re: Relationship attributes
Hi David,
I agree with using the term 'relationship attributes' for attributes of
relationship, I suggest we use "relatedAttributes" for relationship
attributes of entity.
Thanks,
Sarath Subramanian
On Sun, Jul 2
Hi David,
I agree with using the term 'relationship attributes' for attributes of
relationship, I suggest we use "relatedAttributes" for relationship
attributes of entity.
Thanks,
Sarath Subramanian
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 2:22 AM, David Radley
wrote:
> Hi Madhan,
> When I see the phrase 'rel
11 matches
Mail list logo
