dot can not be used in dt-site.xml, as '.' is used as separator for parsing various component from configuration file.
- Tushar. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Yogi Devendra <[email protected]> wrote: > I would prefer '.' (dot). > If there are some technical challenges for dot then I vote for : (colon) or > :: (double colon) in that sequence. > > ~ Yogi > > On 1 December 2015 at 10:17, Gaurav Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What about using “#”? We use this for Unifiers. > > > > Thanks > > - Gaurav > > > > > On Nov 30, 2015, at 8:08 PM, Tushar Gosavi <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > As part of module support, we will need to generate names for operators > > > internal to the module before adding it to the original DAG to avoid > > > conflict of names. For example if a developer adds a operator with name > > "A" > > > and module is name "M" in the DAG. Developer of 'M' is adding a > operator > > > 'A' into the module DAG. To avoid name conflict > > > with the operator in the main DAG we will generate name for internal > > > operators by concatenation of module name and operator name. The 'A' > > within > > > module 'M' will be added to main DAG as 'M_A'. This works for > recursive > > > modules too. (i.e module containing module). > > > > > > Which separator should we use for module namespace? The requirement are > > > - Less chances of collision. (User can add operator with name 'M_A' > too). > > > - Compatible with json format. (Should not have a problem while parsing > > > json response from rest api) > > > - Should be able to specify property in dt-site.xml. > > > > > > While '_' works, In the pull request it has been pointed out that it > has > > > higher chance of collision. Few choices are > > > > > > 1) _ (Underscore) > > > 2) __ (double underscore) > > > 3) : (colon, I will check compatibility with rest API, as it is used to > > > separate key and value in json) > > > 4) :: (Double colon). > > > 5) Let developer choose the separator by specifying dag property, but > > > default is still needed. > > > 6) Any other option? > > > > > > Please suggest which approach to take? > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > -Tushar. > > > > >
