Thanks João for pointing it out. I didn't know about the PR, I am going
to check it.
Best,
Muhammet
On 2024-05-06 14:45, João Boto wrote:
Hi Muhammet,
Have you had a chance to review the recently merged pull request [1]?
We've introduced a new feature allowing users to include ad hoc
configurations in the 'JdbcConnectionOptions' class.
```
new JdbcConnectionOptions.JdbcConnectionOptionsBuilder()
.withUrl(FakeDBUtils.TEST_DB_URL)
.withProperty("keyA", "valueA")
.build();
```
This provides flexibility by enabling users to specify additional
configuration parameters dynamically.
[1] https://github.com/apache/flink-connector-jdbc/pull/115/files
Best
On 2024/05/06 07:34:06 Muhammet Orazov wrote:
Morning João,
Recently we had a case where the JDBC drivers authentication was
different than username&password authentication. For it to work,
certain
hacks required, there interface would have been helpful.
But I agree maybe the interface module separation is not required at
the
moment.
Thanks for your efforts!
Best,
Muhammet
On 2024-05-03 12:25, João Boto wrote:
> Hi Muhammet,
>
> While I generally agree, given our current usage, I'm struggling to
> discern any clear advantage. We already have abstract implementations
> that cover all necessary interfaces and offer essential functionality,
> complemented by a robust set of reusable tests to streamline
> implementation.
>
> With this established infrastructure in place, coupled with the added
> import overhead of introducing another module, I find it difficult to
> identify any distinct benefits at this point.
>
> Best
>
> On 2024/04/26 02:18:52 Muhammet Orazov wrote:
>> Hey João,
>>
>> Thanks for FLIP proposal!
>>
>> Since proposal is to introduce modules, would it make sense
>> to have another module for APIs (flink-jdbc-connector-api)?
>>
>> For this I would suggest to move all public interfaces (e.g,
>> JdbcRowConverter, JdbcConnectionProvider). And even convert
>> some classes into interface with their default implementations,
>> for example, JdbcSink, JdbcConnectionOptions.
>>
>> This way users would have clear interfaces to build their own
>> JDBC based Flink connectors.
>>
>> Here I am not suggesting to introduce new interfaces, only
>> suggest also to separate the API from the core implementation.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Best,
>> Muhammet
>>
>>
>> On 2024-04-25 08:54, Joao Boto wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I'd like to start a discussion on FLIP-449: Reorganization of
>> > flink-connector-jdbc [1].
>> > As Flink continues to evolve, we've noticed an increasing level of
>> > complexity within the JDBC connector.
>> > The proposed solution is to address this complexity by separating the
>> > core
>> > functionality from individual database components, thereby streamlining
>> > the
>> > structure into distinct modules.
>> >
>> > Looking forward to your feedback and suggestions, thanks.
>> > Best regards,
>> > Joao Boto
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-449%3A+Reorganization+of+flink-connector-jdbc
>>
