AlejandroMorgante commented on PR #70160: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/70160#issuecomment-5197235212
That is a good point, and I agree that OCI is a cleaner fit as a separate provider. The closest precedent I see is Microsoft: Azure and SQL Server share the vendor umbrella but are released as `microsoft.azure` (`apache-airflow-providers-microsoft-azure`) and `microsoft.mssql` (`apache-airflow-providers-microsoft-mssql`). OCI and Oracle Database similarly use different SDKs, authentication models, connections, and are not coupled at the code level. Separating them would also avoid making OCI-only users install the mandatory `oracledb` dependency. For the provider ID, between `oracle.oci` and `oracle.cloud`, I would prefer `oracle.oci`: it names the actual platform and does not imply every Oracle Cloud product. One packaging wrinkle is that `oracle` is already a top-level provider distribution rather than only an umbrella namespace. Because of that, a top-level `oci` provider (`apache-airflow-providers-oci`, `airflow.providers.oci`) may be even cleaner unless we explicitly want to make `airflow.providers.oracle` a shared namespace. I would be happy to restructure the PR once we agree on the provider ID. --- Drafted-by: Codex (GPT-5) (no human review before posting) -- 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: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
