airflow-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Chris Riccomini (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (AIRFLOW-2326) Duplicate GCS copy operator
Date Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:01:00 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-2326?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16439636#comment-16439636
] 

Chris Riccomini commented on AIRFLOW-2326:
------------------------------------------

[~b11c], I suspect this was an oversight. I am fine with removing one of them. If we haven't
released them (i.e. they were committed after 1.9), I suggest just deleting the one you think
should be removed.

> Duplicate GCS copy operator
> ---------------------------
>
>                 Key: AIRFLOW-2326
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AIRFLOW-2326
>             Project: Apache Airflow
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Berislav Lopac
>            Priority: Minor
>
> I apologise if this is a known thing, but I have been wondering if anyone can give a
rationale why do we have two separate operators that perform Google Cloud Storage objects
copy -- specifically, {{gcs_copy_operator.GoogleCloudStorageCopyOperator}} and {{gcs_to_gcs.GoogleCloudStorageToGoogleCloudStorageOperator}}.
As far as I can tell they have nearly the same functionality, with the latter being a bit
more flexible (with the {{move_object}} flag).
> If both are not needed, I would like to propose removing one of them (specifically, the
{{gcs_copy_operator}} one); if necessary it can be made into a wrapper/subclass of the other
one, marked for deprecation.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Mime
View raw message