Thanks joao for your replies!
I also saw the latest PR that allows properties to be specified.
Thank for adding the pain points as well, that clarifies a lot.
On May 7, 2024 at 09:50 +0200, Muhammet Orazov <mor+fl...@morazow.com.invalid>,
wrote:
> 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
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
