airflow-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Philippe Gagnon <philgagn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: AIP-21 (Move operators to Core) - "cross_transfer" packages
Date Sat, 21 Sep 2019 19:57:37 GMT
Another way to resolve this could be to define a convention such that a
"cross transfer" operator should belong to either the source or destination
cloud provider's package.

Personally though I do not see any technical issues with having a
"cross_transfer" package, but I don't find the name to roll off the tongue
very well. ;-)

On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 3:53 PM Jarek Potiuk <Jarek.Potiuk@polidea.com>
wrote:

> I have a question: Should we put all transfer operators between into
> separate "cross_transfer" package ?
>
> *Context:*
>
> We had one unresolved point when we decided about AIP-21 - where to put
> transfer operators between service providers. In the middle of implementing
> it, it turned out that we need to make some decisions as it has some
> undesirable side effects if we just move the transfer operators to core
> without any structure. Detailed discussion in this PR:
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/6147
>
> We can solve it easily by choosing "cross_transfer" package for all
> transfer operators that are crossing "service provider" boundary.
>
> This way we will have "gcp" (or maybe even "alphabet" soon), "aws", "azure"
> etc. and "cross_transfer" for all the S3->GCP, AWS->S3 etc.
>
> What do you think? Anyone strongly against this? Or maybe we can follow
> lazy consensus rule for this? Or maybe someone can come up with a better
> name :) ?
>
> J.
>
> --
>
> Jarek Potiuk
> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer
>
> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129>
> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message