metamodel-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] use folder name as schema name for file based DataContexts
Date Sat, 10 Aug 2013 03:58:56 GMT
What is the JIRA for this one?


On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Manuel van den Berg <
Manuel.vandenBerg@humaninference.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> (shouldn't I just vote on the Jira for this?)
>
> manuel
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kasper Sørensen [mailto:i.am.kasper.sorensen@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 9:03
> > To: dev@metamodel.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] use folder name as schema name for file based
> > DataContexts
> >
> > Allow me to bump this issue (it's my impression that more people have
> joined
> > in a bit late, after this topic was posted).
> >
> > I think this is one of the more important issues that I would want to fix
> > before we make our first release at Apache.
> >
> > 2013/7/24 Kasper Sørensen <i.am.kasper.sorensen@gmail.com>:
> > > Right now we have this slightly odd naming convention for schema and
> > > table names when building metadata for e.g. a CSV file or a fixed
> > > width value file.
> > >
> > > Schema name: The filename, including file extension.
> > > Table name: The filename without extension.
> > > Resulting in e.g. a column path like this: people.csv.people.name
> > >
> > > I suggest we change it to this convention:
> > >
> > > Schema name: Folder name
> > > Table name: The filename, including file extension.
> > > Resulting in e.g. a column path like this: documents.people.csv.name
> > >
> > > Why do I think this would be an improvement?
> > >
> > > 1) Because this would first of all make a kind of sense to the user to
> > > see the file system's hierarchy reflected in the schema model.
> > > 2) Because it allows us to make these DataContext's operate not on a
> > > single file, but on a directory of files. I have seen this quite a
> > > number of times by now that users of MetaModel, or users of e.g.
> > > DataCleaner, which uses MetaModel quite heavily, wants to do this sort
> of
> > stuff.
> > > 3) The removing of the file extension stuff is kind of broken and a
> > > strange convention in the first place.
> > >
> > > While this doesn't really break backwards compatibility in terms of
> > > Java code, it would break configuration files and other stuff of
> > > applications that use MetaModel. But I do believe that can be
> > > communicated and handled through carefully explaining the new
> > > convention on the migration page (that I recently started writing [1]).
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/metamodel/MigratingFromEobjectsMetaModel
>

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